== May 20 ==

File:NCP Dhaka rally for seeking ban on Awami League.jpg

The description of the YouTube video says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks-YLI-XI-o&t=1m25s : "Mohona TV has the sole rights to all contents and it does not give permission to any business entity or individual to use these contents except Mohona TV (Mohona Television Media Limited). " আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Anyone publishing a video on YouTube is required to comply with the platform’s policies. In this instance, YouTube supports the use of Creative Commons licenses, and the video has been clearly released under a compatible CC BY license.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 00:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

It is likely an error. It’s highly unusual for a private commercial TV company to release all of their content under a Creative Commons license. Their video descriptions clearly state that all of their content is copyrighted.

I think it’s safest to delete the screenshot if there’s any doubt. Another option could be to reach out to them and ask for clarification. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I found that many of their contents are licensed under CC BY, while some are not. In that case, it doesn't seem to be an error. If it were an error, why would they have released so much content under this license?–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Since all of their video's description has same copyright notices, it was likely two different people who uploaded the videos, and one of them may have selected the wrong license. We can keep speculating about it, but as I mentioned earlier, rather than hosting content that may or may not be copyrighted, It's a good idea to seek clarification from them first. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. The video's description contains a "content declaration" which clearly conflicts with the license, and a "fair use disclaimer" which states that some content in the video may be used under a claim of fair use. Per COM:PCP, we shouldn't be hosting this. Omphalographer (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. Mehedi Abedin 12:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Maroto Coat of Arms.png

No es necesario, ya se utiliza otro escudo de armas G9J (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• @G9J: Do not remove description and information from files when listing them for deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Casa de Maroto COA.png

No es necesario, ya se utiliza otro escudo de armas G9J (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Casa de Maroto.png

No es necesario, ya se utiliza otro escudo de armas G9J (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:House of Câmara Coat of Arms.png

No es necesario, ya se utiliza otro escudo de armas G9J (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:J Le Tessier paysage orxois.jpg

Painter died 1949, so this is out of copyright in France. However, it was still in copyright in the U.S. in 1996, so under URAA it gets 95 years of U.S. protection. If we can firmly date it, it might be OK in the U.S., but if we don't know, I don't see how we can be confident before 2045 (1949+95+1). Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Mural on building in Kalgoorlie, WA, 2023.jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Australia A1Cafel (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree this is a photo of the building which happens to be painted with a pattern.

Kgbo (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Krylon Anarchy.jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep Looks very much to be illegal graffiti, not legal mural. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stardust January 2015.jpg

There's no FOP for artworks in the United States, and there are several previous DRs indicated that tattoos are really artworks that may be copyrighted, unless if it looks fairly simple, the actual license from WWE shall be provided, COM:COSTUME looks also like a concern here. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Also informing Flickr reviewer @Ronhjones: about this matter. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 the Flickr reviewer is already deceased. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Image is still on Flickr under CC BY-SA 2.0 as of today (more than 10 years after initial upload). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep That seems to be face painting, not tattoos. Looks to be a notable person in flamboyant makeup at a public event. I see no reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Infrogmation The costume he weared in this image would also be a concern since this image, after reading its ukwiki usage (although don't understand Ukrainian well, I tried to read via Yandex Translate tool), they mainly focus this image on what he weared instead of just depicting Cody, in that case COM:DM case 6 told me: [No] Very unlikely Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comment. I read a machine translation of the relevant portions of the uk:w article as well as the en:w article (en:w:Cody_Rhodes#Stardust,_creative_frustration,_and_departure_(2014–2016)). They confirm it is face painting, not tattoo. I see no reason to change my "keep" vote. Cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Interesting, @Mykola7: as the uploader still didn't reply here, even though their most activities are acting as a steward, lack of replying here would whatsoever be freaking? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hi. That was so long ago, I don't even remember uploading it :). But I quickly reviewed the nomination and I can confirm - yes, it’s face paint, not a tattoo. ❄️Mykola❄️ 12:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep I don’t know what is considered a problem in this image. This obviously isn’t a tattoo, even if it was it would be below the COM:TOO, and clothing isn’t copyrightable. Dronebogus (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Сцена_от_войните_на_цар_Симеон,_където_се_виждат_българските_знамена_на_конницата_му.jpg

File:Хипотетично знаме на България от покръстването до падането под Византийска зависимост.jpg

Fictional flag without ource. Jingiby (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

В Манасиевата Хроника (XI век)има ясна миниатюра където цар Симеон опожарява "св. Богордица Изворска", там ясно се виждат червените знамена. Също в хрониката са документирани знамената от времето на св. цар Петър и цар Самуил, които са едни и същи с тези на цар Симеон. Ако прибавим и към това отговора на папа Николай I към св. княз Борис, където казва да се сражава под символа на светия кръст като знаме, то излиза че Георги Бакалов в "История на България", Петър Добрев в "Древните българи в световната наука" и Васил Златарски в "История на българката държава през средните векове" (Том I, II, III засягат също и символите и инсигниите на държавата), са били прави, че знамето е било златен кръст на червено поле, като заемка и присвояване на византийски инсигнии с леки поправки (нелогично е да има 4 гръцки "В", които имат смисъл само на гръцки: "Царю на царете, пази царя"). Следователно имаме ясна представа че знамето е било червено (Манасиева хроника), че е било с кръст (отговори на папа Николай I) и подтвърждение от редица авторитетни историци.

Не разбирам защо при положение че показвам ясни извори, с учени които потвърждават тези извори и това знаме, бива премахнато от страницата и докладвано като несъществено без извори. Ще изредя изворите пък вие ми кажете дали са достатъчно авторитетни:

- Кореспонденция на княз Борис и папа Николай I (IX век) "...под знамето на светия кръст...", има цяла статия в Уикипедия на този извор.

- Манасиева хроника (XI век), Константин Манасий е роден 16 години след края на Първата Българска Държава. Има 5 налични преписа и петте показват едно и също знаме, което подтвърждава червеното поле.

- Васил Златарски, авторитетен историк, основоположник на българската медиевистика. Том I, II, III на "История на българката държава през средните векове" споменава многократно че България, след покръстването си, приела Християнска симвология при държавните си инсигнии от Византия.

- Петър Добрев, авторитетен историк (част от БАН) в своя труд "Древните българи в световната наука" подтвърждава думите на Васил Златарски.

- Георги Бакалов, медиевист, авторитетен историк и византолог завършил в Солунския университет, отново подтвърждава, като казва че българите приели знамето от ромеите, като премахнали гръцките букви от него.

Аз не знам дали сте прочел изворите които съм положил, но когато имаме достоверно червено, подтърден кръст, и удобрението на редица авторитетни историци, най-вероятно е време да приемете фактологията по-сериозно. Възнамерявам за отговор. Bulgarian.chad (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bulgarian.chad, please, discus in English language here and provide modern, secondary academic sources in English. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

In the Manassian Chronicle (11th century) there is a clear miniature where Tsar Simeon burns "Our lady of Izvor", on this miniature the red flags are clearly visible (so no doubt that the flag had red plain field). Also in the chronicle are documented the flags from the time of St. Tsar Peter and Tsar Samuil, which are the same as those of Tsar Simeon. If we add to this the response of Pope Nicholas I to St. Prince Boris, where he says to fight under the symbol of the holy cross as a flag, it turns out that Georgi Bakalov in "History of Bulgaria", Petar Dobrev in "Ancient Bulgarians in World Science" and Vasil Zlatarski in "History of the Bulgarian State in the Middle Ages" (Volumes I, II, III also concern the symbols and insignia of the state), were right that the flag was a golden cross on a red field, as a borrowing and appropriation of Byzantine insignia with slight corrections (it is illogical to have 4 Greek "B", which only make sense in Greek: "King of kings, protect the king"). Therefore, we have a clear idea that the flag was red (Manassian Chronicle), that it had a cross (answers to Pope Nicholas I) and confirmation by a number of authoritative historians.

I don't understand why, given that I show clear sources, with scholars who confirm these sources and this flag, it is removed from the page and reported as irrelevant without sources. I will list the sources and you tell me if they are authoritative enough:

- Correspondence of Prince Boris and Pope Nicholas I (9th century) "...under the banner of the holy cross...", there is an entire article on Wikipedia on this source.

- Manassian Chronicle (11th century), Konstantin Manasius was born 16 years after the end of the First Bulgarian State. There are 5 available transcripts and all five show the same flag, which confirms the red field.

- Vasil Zlatarski, an authoritative historian, founder of Bulgarian medieval studies. Volumes I, II, III of "History of the Bulgarian State in the Middle Ages" mention repeatedly that Bulgaria, after its conversion, adopted Christian symbolism for its state insignia from Byzantium.

- Petar Dobrev, an authoritative historian (part of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) in his work "Ancient Bulgarians in World Science" confirms the words of Vasil Zlatarski.

- Georgi Bakalov, a medievalist, authoritative historian and Byzantologist who graduated from the University of Thessaloniki, confirms again, saying that the Bulgarians adopted the flag from the Romans, by removing the Greek letters from it.

I don't know if you have read the sources I have provided, but when we have a reliable red, underlined cross, and the approval of a number of authoritative historians, it is most likely time to take the facts more seriously. I intend to respond. (I put the miniature of the Manassian Chronicle up above the discussion), I hope this answer is good enough so you could think it better! 46.232.158.179 00:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

How more modern than sources that modern historiographers use till today as reference. Basil Zlatarski is used as a source many times in many, if not all, history scientific books and works. Please be objective in this topic. We have a confirmation about the colour by many primary sources as the Manassian chronicle, and then we have another confirmation about that it had a big cross on it. So as Zlatarski said, "medieval Bulgarians adopted the roman insignias", so the reconstruction is legit. What else should I provide? I have modern historiographers and primary sources... 46.232.158.179 17:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

useless file Kreuzecharmeur (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

No FOP in Qatar, previously deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Qatar National Convention Centre

• File:The Conference Venue (6944473886).jpg
• File:The Conference Venue (6944477016).jpg
• File:The Conference Venue (6944480010).jpg
• File:The Conference Venue (7090550353).jpg
• File:The Conference Venue - QNCC (6969751028).jpg
• File:The Conference Venue - The QNCC (6969751202).jpg
• File:The Conference Venue - The QNCC (7115831065).jpg
• File:The Conference Venue - The QNCC (7115849359).jpg
• File:The flag-raising ceremony (6941351918).jpg

Elisfkc (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Forward Fuselage Transair 810.png

Likely copyrighted photo. In the description is "Image courtesy of Sea Engineering, Inc." Ooligan (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

If the company was hired by the NTSB to conduct this work, which appears to be the case, I would think that the NTSB would have the rights to the work created. Furthermore, the company knew as it created the work that it would be distributed into the public domain by the NTSB, which would make it hard for the company to claim copyright infringement. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Note — I asked a similar question at the Village pump relating to images the NTSB released but taken by Ocean Infinity as part of the recovery process and another editor said the copyright most likely belongs to Ocean Infinity. Considering the similarities between these two cases, I'd imagine the same applies here. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:旗福一號 20180212.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/bravo.Kaohsiung/posts/1701226689938954/ Solomon203 (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I was able to find the relevant permit at the time of upload, but it seems that due to website updates, the link from seven years ago is no longer valid, and there is no backup available on the Internet Archive.-- 🚊。鐵路Railway ^Talk 07:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Verbreitung bestimmter Ortsnamen und Mundarten in Elsaß-Lothrungen um 1905.png

This is a duplicate upload which is not in use. NeckarSchwabe (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:SMCfolding 2E.png

This figure contains a mistake, and a corrected version has been Ascendinglotus2 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Altes haus.jpg

This is not the uploader's work as claimed. The uploader stated (in a now deleted article at de:wp) that this photo is from c. 1920. The photographer has not been identified, the copyright status remains unclear. AFBorchert (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep I corrected the license to "PD-EU-no author disclosure". --RAN (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • We do not know this. We do not even know if this photo has been published before. Please do not add licenses to file descriptions without being sure that they apply. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Legendární zimní sport z Vysočiny (BRUSLÁKY) 01.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Romano1981 as Dw no source since (dw no source since), — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 08:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep per User talk:Pohled 111, it's a scan. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 08:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  So what? Who is the author? The uploader, having gained access to one of the paper copies of the photographic work and having scanned it, does not thereby become the author of the original work and does not have the right to determine its licensing status. Romano1981 (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  I have been suspicious of the user in the terms of the copyright for the last few years, but in this case I would assume good faith, it's perhaps a scan of own work or family archive photo. The license tag isn't perfect, but there are thousands and thousands of files around here that violates copyright more blatlantly. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 14:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Your reasoning is clearly among these: COM:PCP. Romano1981 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/197763090@N03

Not sure about this flickr account. Collection of 280 photos of Tamames, who owns the flickr account. I don't know if he owns the rights to all these photos

• File:Rafael Tamames en una sesión de fotografía.jpg
• File:Sesión de fotografía de Rafael Tamames.jpg
• File:Rafael Tamames en IESE.jpg
• File:Rafael Tamames.jpg
• File:Rafael Tamames en IESE Business School.jpg

Gbawden (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Paula-Monica-Mitrache-in-arte-Haiducii (cropped).jpg

LIBERALAICO (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Foto vecchia e di qualità scadente LIBERALAICO (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Minuman membuatmu Enjoy.jpg

Gambar tidak sesuai Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 08:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Cardiff Solidarity for Palestine protest, 25 November 2023 142309 (redacted).jpg

This file was initially tagged by JayCubby as Speedy (db-deriv) and the most recent rationale was: F3. Derivative work of non-free content OwenBlacker (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep From COM:CSD#F3: This does not apply to photographs taken in a public place, though the photograph itself remains subject to the other speedy criteria if its authorship is in question

This is clearly a photograph taken in a public place (Central Square (Q5061833) in Cardiff), so at the very least we should discuss it more fully, per Given the complexity of copyright rules like freedom of panorama and de minimis, it is best for such issues to be resolved in a formal deletion request. — OwenBlacker (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@OwenBlacker, see COM:UK § FoP: Not OK for 2D "graphic works". A 2D graphic work is, for example a sign containing images. Hope that resolves the matter. JayCubby (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep The sign was clearly made to be displayed widely without any requirement for copyright protection and was displayed publically in such a manner. It is daft to try and invoke copyright protection to try and stop it being used on Commons. Besides it is nowhere near being "a work of artistic craftmanship". NadVolum (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Pierre de Meuron 2025.jpg

Redundancy Loremipsumdolorsit123 (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Loremipsumdolorsit123 Thanks. Yes this version can be deleted. Quaenuncabibis (talk) Quaenuncabibis (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Sakit 2.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Sakit Yagubov.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Yolchuyev Allahyar 3.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Yolchuyev Allahyar 1.png

Not used COM:ADVERT file Yousiphh (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Vugar Yolchiyev.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Shafagat Makhmudova.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Tofiq Məlikli.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

AI reconstructions by Sir Shurf

• File:Mammalodon_Colliveri_reconstruction_by_AI.png
• File:Mammalodon_Colliveri_surroundings_reconstruction_by_AI.jpg
• File:Evolution_of_Cetacea1.jpg - forgot to add, using first file

Inaccurate and unfixable AI reconstructions of fossil taxon. AI can never accurately portray an animal, so this image is not educational or usable in any way. For example, the second reconstruction shows a shark with extra fins and a Basilosaurus missing its hind legs, both of which make no sense being outside the ocean. Also see similar case like Commons:Deletion requests/File:A dodo bird in its natural habitat, possibly engaging in an activity like eating, by ChatGPT 4.0, Dall-E 3.0 (2024).png. --Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. User-generated paleoart from Commons is only welcomed (and that's a tentative welcome to begin with) on Wikipedia because human authors can provide sources and demonstrate that images have educational value that is not available using only existing, appropriately licensed images. ChatGPT does not have any concept of what a Mammalodon is or why it is significant, has created results that only resemble one in the absolute vaguest sense, and cannot respond to criticisms from other users to improve its work. This image is not only scientifically inaccurate and non-educational, admittedly a problem with a lot of user-generated paleoart on Commons anyway, but the processes behind its creation make it clear that no discretion or effort went into it. Use of these files on any Wikipedia page or even idle on Commons borders on flat-out misinformation, and the amount of effort required to warp these into something appropriate for the site would be equivalent to making a more suitable image from scratch. Gasmasque (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I used the original article descripting Mammalodon as a source for ChatGPT to create the illustration. Of course AI may do a bad job, but so may a human illustrator. Please, look at the source:

https://www.academia.edu/313293/The_Morphology_and_Systematics_of_Mammalodon_Colliveri_Cetacea_Mysticeti_a_Toothed_Mysticete_From_the_Oligocene_of_Australia

I believe that lacking any other free illustration of Mammalodon, that one can do. if you have any good advice how to achieve a better result, I will gladly use it. Sir Shurf (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You can achieve a better result by letting a human illustrate it and passing it by the paleoart review page on ENwiki. This reconstruction looks nothing like the fossil material we have or other published reconstructions. I would strongly advise against using AI image generation tools to make paleoartistic reconstructions: they lack the nuance needed to properly execute them. In it's current state the images would misinform people about the animal. I would think it best to  Delete both. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Unless your goal is to add images solely to fill space or add aesthetic flair, these reconstructions are indeed worse than nothing on a mainspace Wiki page intended to educate. This situation may be different on Russian Wikipedia, but there are several talented artists active on English Wiki who can provide life reconstructions or diagrams for taxa on request and do quite a good job of it, and they can be contacted to create illustrations for pages that are being expanded and improved. Inaccurate paleoart can be useful, it can provide historic context or be used illustrate alternate hypotheses, but these reconstructions are neither authentically historic nor deliberately illustrating a specific historic idea, so in my opinion they fall out of scope. This is not inherently an issue of AI, either, as similar low-effort, hand-drawn works of paleoart have been deleted from Commons for being out of scope under the same rationale. On the topic of AI, though, the fact that you both used a source that describes the taxon and are seemingly competent at prompting ChatGPT's image generator, and yet the results were still so far removed from e.g. the illustrated skull and tooth diagram also used on the article, is an indicator that the tools as they currently exist are still inherently unreliable for the purposes of creating usable paleoart. Gasmasque (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know people on en-wiki... Could you please point out users I can turn to to ask for reconstruction illustration of this whale? Sir Shurf (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, but @SeismicShrimp on en-wiki has been open to illustrating obscure extinct marine life and is quite skilled. If you yourself would consider these images redundant or obsolete if a human-produced image became available I could make a post requesting a life reconstruction of Mammalodon and/or its environment. That could solve the issue of no reasonable alternatives being available. Gasmasque (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay on my side this time. Of course it would be best if human-made reconstruction of Mammalodon is made! Please make a post that you suggested. Thank you for the help. Sir Shurf (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Per nom, human-made reconstructions will always be better than ai generated imagery.

1. They are fixable if they don't fit the goal of Wikipedia reconstructions

2. We can ask the artist why specific parts were reconstructed the way they were and discuss them

3. Human artists are able to make informed desicions regarding what we know about said animals in a way which aids the educational value of the page they're added to

Sauriazoicillus (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Listed one missed file using first one. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Blue Line SPb Metro map Snitovsky version.svg

An image contains wrong data about depth of one station, see ru:Проект:Графическая мастерская/Заявки#Глубины метро. Correct image: file:Blue Line Saint-Petersburg Metro.svg. MBH 17:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

There is value in keeping and refining this infographic if someone manages to find accurate data on the distance between the Petrogradskaya and Pionerskaya metro stations. It could be useful for an article about the accident on this section. The infographic you suggested as a replacement can remain specifically as a graphical representation of the station depths in the metro. This series of infographics could also be expanded to cover other lines. — Fargoh (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Errors have been corrected, and data on the length of the metro line section where the brake failure incident occurred has been added. — Fargoh (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ahmad Abdul Qader.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Owais Al Qarni as Speedy (db-author) and the most recent rationale was: author Yann (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Uploaded in 2020, no valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: This was one of my earliest works. I'm not sure how I came to be listed as the copyright owner of this image. It may have originally been sourced from a YouTube video released under a CC-BY license and later edited by me. However, I can no longer find any data to verify this. Therefore, I would like to request its deletion.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Haciaganematov.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep Now fixed. --RAN (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Elxan quliyev yeni.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Qulamov.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Why? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Smelikov.jpg

Wrong license. AI subjected art work Yousiphh (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Georgimelikov.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Starbucks (53239548921).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Quick1984 as Speedy (db-deriv) and the most recent rationale was: |2=COM:PACKAGING|help=off Yann (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Starbucks Double Shot Espresso Con Panna (3716866844).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Quick1984 as Speedy (db-deriv) and the most recent rationale was: |2=COM:PACKAGING|help=off Yann (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: The problem is that different admins make different decisions on the same requests. I used to create regular DRs until this immediate action of The Squirrel Conspiracy. Quick1984 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I think File:Whisky - Sea Witch (1).jpg should not have been speedy deleted, in view of the uncertainty, i.e. . Yann (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Yann, I would speedy delete this one too. The difference between the Fanta cans and the Starbucks logo or the painting on the Whisky bottle is that you can credibly argue there are no copyrightable elements on the Fanta cans - they're PD-textlogo. You can't make that argument here or with the Whisky bottle, unless the source of the painting can be found and it's out of copyright. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Quick1984 @The Squirrel Conspiracy Just to make things clear, the alleged copyrightable element here is the logo? howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. In my opinion it's the only part of the can that's copyrightable. Everything else is just text and basic geometry. However, the logo makes up a substantial portion of the image by focus, so COM:De minimis doesn't apply. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It's incidental, mentioned on the de minimis page as X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable. Not actual de minimis, but something a little different, though somewhat related. The Ets-Hokin decision is right in line with that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

So,  Keep for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I agree that the logo has a copyright. The issue is that this kind of pictures seems to be acceptable if it represents the whole product, according to User:Clindberg. Yann (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Two more similar ones: File:Not my name (23677451241).jpg; File:Starbucks Nitro Cold Brew 2020.jpg and ping @Túrelio: in an attempt to come to a consensus. --Quick1984 (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte Frappuccino.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Quick1984 as Speedy (db-deriv) and the most recent rationale was: |2=COM:PACKAGING|help=off Yann (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte (38404428942).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Quick1984 as Speedy (db-deriv) and the most recent rationale was: |2=COM:PACKAGING|help=off Yann (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Plus the file description, which suggests it is non free:

We've released this photo under Creative Commons (Attribution-non commercial). JayCubby (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that may be an issue. The license is OK at the source through. Yann (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:HK 堅尼地城 Kennedy Town 北街 North Street 海怡花園 Harbour View Garden shop Wellcome store goods Starbucks October 2019 SS2 06.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Quick1984 as Speedy (db-deriv) and the most recent rationale was: |2=COM:PACKAGING|help=off Yann (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ma tasse de café.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Quick1984 as Speedy (db-deriv) and the most recent rationale was: |2=COM:PACKAGING|help=off Yann (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Gaza (53356500994).jpg

This file was initially tagged by JayCubby as Speedy (db-deriv) and the most recent rationale was: |help=off Yann (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

It's just a bunch of logo copyvios. Not of much use if blurred JayCubby (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that the board with the slogan is useful to represent the campaign to boycott these brands. Yann (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ay Yola.png

Ошибка файла Alikhan 1987 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Nikoloz Zhamutashvili 2.jpg

Possible COM:NETCOPYVIO: Facebook is listed as the source, but 2025 can't be correct. How old is the image, where does it come from, who is the author? Information that isn't clear from the description. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ticket:2025052610003348 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Rəhilə Bəndəliyeva.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Azeri Express logo.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment. Likely below the threshold of originality. The question is whether this is a notable company and within scope. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Şaiq Qəribzadə.jpg

Not used COM:ADVERT file Yousiphh (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Husniya Maharramova 2.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Husniya Maharramova 1.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Husniya Maharramova.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment how is this or any of the other images "wrong license"? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Məhərrəm Əhmədov.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Rustam Jabrayilov.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Bahram Aliyev.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Bahram Aliyev 2.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:M.Əhmədov.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Erti dge agarakze.jpg

COM:NETCOPYVIO: File has Facebook metadata. Not own work. Requires permission. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ticket:2025052610003348 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ketili mezobeli.jpg

COM:NETCOPYVIO: Files contain Facebook metadata. Not own work. Requires permission. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ticket:2025052610003348 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Me chems gzas movnaxav.jpg

COM:NETCOPYVIO: Files contain Facebook metadata. Not own work. Requires permission. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ticket:2025052610003348 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Sad xar chveno mebageo.jpg

COM:NETCOPYVIO: Files contain Facebook metadata. Not own work. Requires permission. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ticket:2025052610003348 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:ვაჟთა გუნდი ყვარელი.png

COM:NETCOPYVIO: Cover of a recording of unknown origin. The year 2025 and "own work claim" are incorrect. Needs a source. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ticket:2025052610003348 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Nikoloz Zhamutashvili 3.jpg

COM:NETCOPYVIO: File has Facebook metadata. Not own work. Requires permission. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ticket:2025052610003348 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Nikoloz Zhamutashvili 4.jpg

COM:NETCOPYVIO: File has Facebook metadata. Not own work. Requires permission. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ticket:2025052610003348 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Nikoloz-zhamutashvili.ogg

COM:NETCOPYVIO: Sound recording of unknown origin. Sounds old. 2025 and "own work claim" are incorrect. Requires precise citation. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 21:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ticket:2025052610003348 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Nikoloz zhamutashvili.png

COM:NETCOPYVIO: Date and "own work" are incorrect. A source reference is required to determine the original author, and if unknown, the age of the image. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 21:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ticket:2025052610003348 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:ถนนเยาวราชถ่ายเมื่อ ค.ศ.1950.jpg

Photograph from LIFE photographic collection. It is most likely therefore that the country of origin is not Thailand, but the USA. Time/Life has been diligent about renewing copyrights, so I think we must assume that it will be under copyright until 2046 (95 years after publication). 83.61.242.133 22:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:USS LST-205 National Archives 78186893.jpg

Photograph comes from the LIFE photographic collection and not from the US Navy (it has a clearly notice about the non-commercial use in navalsource.org). Time/Life has been diligent about renewing copyrights, so I consider reasonable to assume it will be under copyright until 2039 at least. 83.61.242.133 22:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Image -L’Extrinsèquité — Vers une émancipation de l’être par-delà les regards.jpg

Demande de suppression de l’image car elle sera remplacée par une version améliorée. M LAHIT (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:SQL (Geekography)

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons.

• File:ALTER TABLE (14610780478).jpg
• File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg
• File:SELECT (51286870505).jpg
• File:WHERE (52916160793).jpg

Dronebogus (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image clearly fails COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.

If one was to illustrate the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does neither need hundreds of photos nor these particular images to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series which is not very notable to begin with.
In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. Regarding prior discussions people may bring up: if you think these are relevant or imply anything, please paste the specific argument(s)/reason(s) to keep here if and/or write one. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete To quote myself from one of the other open DRs, I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. [...] I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  the statement "Commons is not censored" is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside Commons' defined scope, as set out above […] such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope. So nothing of these policies implies or suggests these images should be kept. You did not address any of the points made. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Prototyperspective: Fine, I add the arguments of RodRabelo7 and Tm.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Container (51093118922).jpg 2

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Linking to a bunch of places is not an an argument/reason. Copy pasting or specifying which specific argument(s) you refer to would be.
2. Just 28 distinct are being used in mainspace, excluding wikinews. That is 3.38% of all the 829 images of category. Since those used ones are not the nominated files, this is not entirely irrelevant but largely irrelevant to this DR.
3. You seem to have the misconception that a person or series being slightly notable implies that all instances of the series or photos taken by the person are within scope. This is false.

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Linking to similar 40 or more deletion requests of this same images or catehory (closed as "images in scope") and previous discussions in Commons, where the same scope was multiple times asserted, are arguments/reasons. Or should we just ignore and not even dare to mention previous discussions and dr´s just because it might not convenient to some?

And, about the use of this images in the main space, Commons:Scope clearly says "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope", not "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope, unless it is used only in the following places: User pages, etc" not " "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project (...), unless it is used only in the following places: (...) Russian Wikinews".

And the same Commons:Scope says "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope.", ergo you cannot exclude a project usage of the images just because you think you can. Then, your exclusion of Wikinews is nothing more then trying to fiddle with numbers, as in ALL mainspaces, the numbers are image usages in 191 in total, with 89 distinct images used or 10.74% of all images of category, not the 3.38%. How many categories in Commons have this percentage of usage, or what is the percentage of all images in Commons that are in use in percentage? Very likely way less then 10.74%, and maybe even 3.38%.

And you seem to have the misconception that the vast majority of work and artistic photos of a notable photographer, specially the ones of the project that makes him more notable should be deleted because of fiddle reasons, not connected to scope. Or will not the same arguments be used for deletion of other work and artistic photos of other notable photographers, even if the subjects photographed are not the same? Tm (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep, per Rod and Tm; see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

1. You seem to mistake those policies as to imply all images shown porn or nudity should be kept regardless of considerations like COM:SCOPE 2. Rod just made uncivil personal attacks and did not make any argument whatsoever and I addressed Tm's points above which are a mix of misconceptions and not applicable to this file (this file is not in use). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Body painting - active.jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete To quote myself from one of the other open DRs, I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. [...] I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Linking to a bunch of places is not an an argument/reason. Copy pasting or specifying which specific argument(s) you refer to would be.
2. Just 28 distinct are being used in mainspace, excluding wikinews. That is 3.38% of all the 829 images of category. Since those used ones are not the nominated files, this is not entirely irrelevant but largely irrelevant to this DR.
3. You seem to have the misconception that a person or series being slightly notable implies that all instances of the series or photos taken by the person are within scope. This is false.

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Linking to similar 40 or more deletion requests of this same images or catehory (closed as "images in scope") and previous discussions in Commons, where the same scope was multiple times asserted, are arguments/reasons. Or should we just ignore and not even dare to mention previous discussions and dr´s just because it might not convenient to some?

And, about the use of this images in the main space, Commons:Scope clearly says "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope", not "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope, unless it is used only in the following places: User pages, etc" not " "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project (...), unless it is used only in the following places: (...) Russian Wikinews".

And the same Commons:Scope says "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope.", ergo you cannot exclude a project usage of the images just because you think you can. Then, your exclusion of Wikinews is nothing more then trying to fiddle with numbers, as in ALL mainspaces, the numbers are image usages in 191 in total, with 89 distinct images used or 10.74% of all images of category, not the 3.38%. How many categories in Commons have this percentage of usage, or what is the percentage of all images in Commons that are in use in percentage? Very likely way less then 10.74%, and maybe even 3.38%.

And you seem to have the misconception that the vast majority of work and artistic photos of a notable photographer, specially the ones of the project that makes him more notable should be deleted because of fiddle reasons, not connected to scope. Or will not the same arguments be used for deletion of other work and artistic photos of other notable photographers, even if the subjects photographed are not the same? Tm (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete The images in the series that have been kept in previous DRs and part of the competition that he's notable for probably shouldn't be deleted since there's a clear consensus that they are educational. There's zero reason that every single image this guy creates for the rest of eternity would be educational purely because he came in 15th at some minor photography competition once though. Otherwise your arguing for inherited notability, which has nothing to do with educational value. At least not for modern photographs or photographers. An image of 911 on here by a random Flickr user is educational due to the subject matter. Whereas a photograph that they took 15 years later of their foot obviously isn't. The same goes here. The specific photographs that were part of the competition that he's notable for are educational. Whereas random images of women's body parts that he took years later and have nothing to do with why he's notable aren't. Or your creating a de-facto standard where everything is inherently educational just because of other images by the same person being on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Flex-shrink (49605458053).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Linking to a bunch of places is not an an argument/reason. Copy pasting or specifying which specific argument(s) you refer to would be.
2. Just 28 distinct are being used in mainspace, excluding wikinews. That is 3.38% of all the 829 images of category. Since those used ones are not the nominated files, this is not entirely irrelevant but largely irrelevant to this DR.
3. You seem to have the misconception that a person or series being slightly notable implies that all instances of the series or photos taken by the person are within scope. This is false.

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Linking to similar 40 or more deletion requests of this same images or catehory (closed as "images in scope") and previous discussions in Commons, where the same scope was multiple times asserted, are arguments/reasons. Or should we just ignore and not even dare to mention previous discussions and dr´s just because it might not convenient to some?

And, about the use of this images in the main space, Commons:Scope clearly says "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope", not "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope, unless it is used only in the following places: User pages, etc" not " "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project (...), unless it is used only in the following places: (...) Russian Wikinews".

And the same Commons:Scope says "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope.", ergo you cannot exclude a project usage of the images just because you think you can. Then, your exclusion of Wikinews is nothing more then trying to fiddle with numbers, as in ALL mainspaces, the numbers are image usages in 191 in total, with 89 distinct images used or 10.74% of all images of category, not the 3.38%. How many categories in Commons have this percentage of usage, or what is the percentage of all images in Commons that are in use in percentage? Very likely way less then 10.74%, and maybe even 3.38%.

And you seem to have the misconception that the vast majority of work and artistic photos of a notable photographer, specially the ones of the project that makes him more notable should be deleted because of fiddle reasons, not connected to scope. Or will not the same arguments be used for deletion of other work and artistic photos of other notable photographers, even if the subjects photographed are not the same? Tm (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image do, clearly, fails COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
If one was to illustrate the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. It's also badly titled, framed, and described and not relevant to or useful to the subject but this is not the main point here. Regarding prior discussion people may bring up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep, per Rod and Tm; see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

1. You seem to mistake those policies as to imply all images shown porn or nudity should be kept (regardless of considerations like those of the deletion rationale & COM:SCOPE) 2. Rod just made uncivil personal attacks and did not make any argument whatsoever and I addressed Tm's points above which are a mix of misconceptions and not applicable to this file (this file is not in use). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Max-width (19628859502).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete To quote myself from one of the other open DRs, I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. [...] I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete The images in the series that have been kept in previous DRs and part of the competition that he's notable for probably shouldn't be deleted since there's a clear consensus that they are educational. There's zero reason that every single image this guy creates for the rest of eternity would be educational purely because he came in 15th at some minor photography competition once though. Otherwise your arguing for inherited notability, which has nothing to do with educational value. At least not for modern photographs or photographers. An image of 911 on here by a random Flickr user is educational due to the subject matter. Whereas a photograph that they took 15 years later of their foot obviously isn't. The same goes here. The specific photographs that were part of the competition that he's notable for are educational. Whereas random images of women's body parts that he took years later and have nothing to do with why he's notable aren't. Or your creating a de-facto standard where everything is inherently educational just because of other images by the same person being on here.--Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image clearly does fail COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
––– If one was to illustrate (an aspect of) the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. On top, it's also badly titled, framed, and described and not relevant to or useful to or an actual depiction of the(se) subject(s) but this is not the main point here. Regarding prior discussions people brought up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s)/reason(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Mix-blend-mode (48611229972).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete To quote myself from one of the other open DRs, I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. [...] I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Linking to a bunch of places is not an an argument/reason. Copy pasting or specifying which specific argument(s) you refer to would be.
2. Just 28 distinct are being used in mainspace, excluding wikinews. That is 3.38% of all the 829 images of category. Since those used ones are not the nominated files, this is not entirely irrelevant but largely irrelevant to this DR.
3. You seem to have the misconception that a person or series being slightly notable implies that all instances of the series or photos taken by the person are within scope. This is false.

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Linking to similar 40 or more deletion requests of this same images or catehory (closed as "images in scope") and previous discussions in Commons, where the same scope was multiple times asserted, are arguments/reasons. Or should we just ignore and not even dare to mention previous discussions and dr´s just because it might not convenient to some?

And, about the use of this images in the main space, Commons:Scope clearly says "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope", not "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope, unless it is used only in the following places: User pages, etc" not " "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project (...), unless it is used only in the following places: (...) Russian Wikinews".

And the same Commons:Scope says "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope.", ergo you cannot exclude a project usage of the images just because you think you can. Then, your exclusion of Wikinews is nothing more then trying to fiddle with numbers, as in ALL mainspaces, the numbers are image usages in 191 in total, with 89 distinct images used or 10.74% of all images of category, not the 3.38%. How many categories in Commons have this percentage of usage, or what is the percentage of all images in Commons that are in use in percentage? Very likely way less then 10.74%, and maybe even 3.38%.

And you seem to have the misconception that the vast majority of work and artistic photos of a notable photographer, specially the ones of the project that makes him more notable should be deleted because of fiddle reasons, not connected to scope. Or will not the same arguments be used for deletion of other work and artistic photos of other notable photographers, even if the subjects photographed are not the same? Tm (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image do, clearly, fails COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
If one was to illustrate the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. Regarding prior discussion people may bring up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Line-height (51411944173).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep, per Rod and Tm; see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image clearly does fail COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
––– If one was to illustrate (an aspect of) the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. On top, it's also badly titled, framed, and described and not relevant to or useful to or an actual depiction of the(se) subject(s) but this is not the main point here. Regarding prior discussions people brought up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s)/reason(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Just saying it should be kept is not an argument. Personal attacks are neither. Linking to prior DRs without specifying reasons neither. COM:CENSOR does not imply all photos of nude people or porn or otherwise controversial files must be kept so that is also not an argument. So all that remains is the remaining parts of Tm's overly long comment – however these don't even hold the slightest scrutiny:

1. Just 28 distinct are being used in mainspace, excluding wikinews. That is 3.38% of all the 829 images of category. Since those used ones are not the nominated files, this is (not entirely irrelevant but) largely irrelevant to this DR.
2. Tm seems to have the misconception that a person or series being slightly notable implies that all instances of the series or photos taken by the person are within scope. This is false.

I hope that unlike much of society, on Commons we can have thoughtful rational debate and such requires reasoning. In particular, clear rational arguments for or against Keeping these files. I can't see not one valid reason to keep this file but do see how COM:SCOPE implies this unused file should be deleted. It doesn't matter to my conclusion how many people (and it's usually the same few power-users; lots of people claimed the Sun revolves around the Earth many times) how often claim this or that – what should matter are real reasons. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Overflow (22479530953).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete To quote myself from one of the other open DRs, I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. [...] I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Linking to a bunch of places is not an an argument/reason. Copy pasting or specifying which specific argument(s) you refer to would be.
2. Just 28 distinct are being used in mainspace, excluding wikinews. That is 3.38% of all the 829 images of category. Since those used ones are not the nominated files, this is not entirely irrelevant but largely irrelevant to this DR.
3. You seem to have the misconception that a person or series being slightly notable implies that all instances of the series or photos taken by the person are within scope. This is false.

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Linking to similar 40 or more deletion requests of this same images or catehory (closed as "images in scope") and previous discussions in Commons, where the same scope was multiple times asserted, are arguments/reasons. Or should we just ignore and not even dare to mention previous discussions and dr´s just because it might not convenient to some?

And, about the use of this images in the main space, Commons:Scope clearly says "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope", not "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope, unless it is used only in the following places: User pages, etc" not " "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project (...), unless it is used only in the following places: (...) Russian Wikinews".

And the same Commons:Scope says "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope.", ergo you cannot exclude a project usage of the images just because you think you can. Then, your exclusion of Wikinews is nothing more then trying to fiddle with numbers, as in ALL mainspaces, the numbers are image usages in 191 in total, with 89 distinct images used or 10.74% of all images of category, not the 3.38%. How many categories in Commons have this percentage of usage, or what is the percentage of all images in Commons that are in use in percentage? Very likely way less then 10.74%, and maybe even 3.38%.

And you seem to have the misconception that the vast majority of work and artistic photos of a notable photographer, specially the ones of the project that makes him more notable should be deleted because of fiddle reasons, not connected to scope. Or will not the same arguments be used for deletion of other work and artistic photos of other notable photographers, even if the subjects photographed are not the same? Tm (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image does, clearly, fails COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
If one was to illustrate the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. It's also badly titled, framed, and described and not relevant to or useful to the subject but this is not the main point here. Regarding prior discussion people may bring up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Transform (51369924417).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete To quote myself from one of the other open DRs, I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. [...] I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Nguyễn Thúc Thùy Tiên 2025.png

nomination because it is an image from a different channel Aurelio Sandoval (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:417 (HTTP Status Code) (26102402495).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete To quote myself from one of the other open DRs, I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. [...] I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete The images in the series that have been kept in previous DRs and part of the competition that he's notable for probably shouldn't be deleted since there's a clear consensus that they are educational. There's zero reason that every single image this guy creates for the rest of eternity would be educational purely because he came in 15th at some minor photography competition once though. Otherwise your arguing for inherited notability, which has nothing to do with educational value. At least not for modern photographs or photographers. An image of 911 on here by a random Flickr user is educational due to the subject matter. Whereas a photograph that they took 15 years later of their foot obviously isn't. The same goes here. The specific photographs that were part of the competition that he's notable for are educational. Whereas random images of women's body parts that he took years later and have nothing to do with why he's notable aren't. Or your creating a de-facto standard where everything is inherently educational just because of other images by the same person being on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image does fail COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
––– If one was to illustrate the (an aspect of) nude female body there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. Regarding prior discussions people brought up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s)/reason(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

File:450 (HTTP Status Code) (17477720803).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete To quote myself from one of the other open DRs, I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. [...] I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete The images in the series that have been kept in previous DRs and part of the competition that he's notable for probably shouldn't be deleted since there's a clear consensus that they are educational. There's zero reason that every single image this guy creates for the rest of eternity would be educational purely because he came in 15th at some minor photography competition once though. Otherwise your arguing for inherited notability, which has nothing to do with educational value. At least not for modern photographs or photographers. An image of 911 on here by a random Flickr user is educational due to the subject matter. Whereas a photograph that they took 15 years later of their foot obviously isn't. The same goes here. The specific photographs that were part of the competition that he's notable for are educational. Whereas random images of women's body parts that he took years later and have nothing to do with why he's notable aren't. Or your creating a de-facto standard where everything is inherently educational just because of other images by the same person being on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image clearly does fail COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
––– If one was to illustrate (an aspect of) the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. On top, it's also badly titled, framed, and described and not relevant to or useful to or an actual depiction of the(se) subject(s) but this is not the main point here. Regarding prior discussions people brought up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s)/reason(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

File:502 (Exey Panteleev).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete To quote myself from one of the other open DRs, I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. [...] I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tm: I'm trying to understand: are you saying that Exey Panteleev is an important enough artist that literally anything he creates is inherently in scope? - Jmabel ! talk 04:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Just as a random example, for the sake of argument, some random photos of him and other friends or relatives on vacations would most likely not be in scope.

But this work of him, uploaded to Commons is, per the dozens of discussions, for the last 13 years. To avaoid repost again, given that the user that opened this deletion request opened at least 30 deletion requests with the same copycarbon text, and to avoid adding to my wall of text above, please see this two comments of mine, in another deletion request, about why his work is in scope. Tm (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete The images in the series that have been kept in previous DRs and part of the competition that he's notable for probably shouldn't be deleted since there's a clear consensus that they are educational. There's zero reason that every single image this guy creates for the rest of eternity would be educational purely because he came in 15th at some minor photography competition once though. Otherwise your arguing for inherited notability, which has nothing to do with educational value. At least not for modern photographs or photographers. An image of 911 on here by a random Flickr user is educational due to the subject matter. Whereas a photograph that they took 15 years later of their foot obviously isn't. The same goes here. The specific photographs that were part of the competition that he's notable for are educational. Whereas random images of women's body parts that he took years later and have nothing to do with why he's notable aren't. Or your creating a de-facto standard where everything is inherently educational just because of other images by the same person being on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image clearly does fail COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
––– If one was to illustrate (an aspect of) the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. On top, it's also badly titled, framed, and described and not relevant to or useful to or an actual depiction of the(se) subject(s) but this is not the main point here. Regarding prior discussions people brought up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s)/reason(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Body painting - The Server Is Down.jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep Somewhat clever work by artist of some notability; no reason to delete. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete The images in the series that have been kept in previous DRs and part of the competition that he's notable for probably shouldn't be deleted since there's a clear consensus that they are educational. There's zero reason that every single image this guy creates for the rest of eternity would be educational purely because he came in 15th at some minor photography competition once though. Otherwise your arguing for inherited notability, which has nothing to do with educational value. At least not for modern photographs or photographers. An image of 911 on here by a random Flickr user is educational due to the subject matter. Whereas a photograph that they took 15 years later of their foot obviously isn't. The same goes here. The specific photographs that were part of the competition that he's notable for are educational. Whereas random images of women's body parts that he took years later and have nothing to do with why he's notable aren't. Or your creating a de-facto standard where everything is inherently educational just because of other images by the same person being on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Nude portrayal of HTTP response status code 303 (52244512070).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep, per Rod and Tm; see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image clearly does fail COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
––– If one was to illustrate (an aspect of) the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. On top, it's also badly titled, framed, and described and not relevant to or useful to or an actual depiction of the(se) subject(s) but this is not the main point here. Regarding prior discussions people brought up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s)/reason(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Just saying it should be kept is not an argument. Personal attacks are neither. Linking to prior DRs without specifying reasons neither. COM:CENSOR does not imply all photos of nude people or porn or otherwise controversial files must be kept so that is also not an argument. So all that remains is the remaining parts of Tm's overly long comment – however these don't even hold the slightest scrutiny:

1. Just 28 distinct are being used in mainspace, excluding wikinews. That is 3.38% of all the 829 images of category. Since those used ones are not the nominated files, this is (not entirely irrelevant but) largely irrelevant to this DR.
2. Tm seems to have the misconception that a person or series being slightly notable implies that all instances of the series or photos taken by the person are within scope. This is false.

I hope that unlike much of society, on Commons we can have thoughtful rational debate and such requires reasoning. In particular, clear rational arguments for or against Keeping these files. I can't see not one valid reason to keep this file but do see how COM:SCOPE implies this unused file should be deleted. It doesn't matter to my conclusion how many people (and it's usually the same few power-users; lots of people claimed the Sun revolves around the Sun many times) how often claim this or that – what should matter are real reasons. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Project "Geekography" 404 (51135347924).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep, per Rod and Tm; see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:(base).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep, per Rod and Tm; see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image clearly does fail COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
––– If one was to illustrate (an aspect of) the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. On top, it's also badly titled, framed, and described and not relevant to or useful to or an actual depiction of the(se) subject(s) but this is not the main point here. Regarding prior discussions people brought up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s)/reason(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Just saying it should be kept is not an argument. Personal attacks are neither. Linking to prior DRs without specifying reasons neither. COM:CENSOR does not imply all photos of nude people or porn or otherwise controversial files must be kept so that is also not an argument. So all that remains is the remaining parts of Tm's overly long comment – however these don't even hold the slightest scrutiny:

1. Just 28 distinct are being used in mainspace, excluding wikinews. That is 3.38% of all the 829 images of category. Since those used ones are not the nominated files, this is (not entirely irrelevant but) largely irrelevant to this DR.
2. Tm seems to have the misconception that a person or series being slightly notable implies that all instances of the series or photos taken by the person are within scope. This is false.

I hope that unlike much of society, on Commons we can have thoughtful rational debate and such requires reasoning. In particular, clear rational arguments for or against Keeping these files. I can't see not one valid reason to keep this file but do see how COM:SCOPE implies this unused file should be deleted. It doesn't matter to my conclusion how many people (and it's usually the same few power-users; lots of people claimed the Sun revolves around the Earth many times) how often claim this or that – what should matter are real reasons with consideration for what people counter to these in specific. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Delete the file and make this user an admin. 186.174.34.210 22:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Abbr (52152367293).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete To quote myself from one of the other open DRs, I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. [...] I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Linking to a bunch of places is not an an argument/reason. Copy pasting or specifying which specific argument(s) you refer to would be.
2. Just 28 distinct are being used in mainspace, excluding wikinews. That is 3.38% of all the 829 images of category. Since those used ones are not the nominated files, this is not entirely irrelevant but largely irrelevant to this DR.
3. You seem to have the misconception that a person or series being slightly notable implies that all instances of the series or photos taken by the person are within scope. This is false.

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Linking to similar 40 or more deletion requests of this same images or catehory (closed as "images in scope") and previous discussions in Commons, where the same scope was multiple times asserted, are arguments/reasons. Or should we just ignore and not even dare to mention previous discussions and dr´s just because it might not convenient to some?

And, about the use of this images in the main space, Commons:Scope clearly says "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope", not "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope, unless it is used only in the following places: User pages, etc" not " "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project (...), unless it is used only in the following places: (...) Russian Wikinews".

And the same Commons:Scope says "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope.", ergo you cannot exclude a project usage of the images just because you think you can. Then, your exclusion of Wikinews is nothing more then trying to fiddle with numbers, as in ALL mainspaces, the numbers are image usages in 191 in total, with 89 distinct images used or 10.74% of all images of category, not the 3.38%. How many categories in Commons have this percentage of usage, or what is the percentage of all images in Commons that are in use in percentage? Very likely way less then 10.74%, and maybe even 3.38%.

And you seem to have the misconception that the vast majority of work and artistic photos of a notable photographer, specially the ones of the project that makes him more notable should be deleted because of fiddle reasons, not connected to scope. Or will not the same arguments be used for deletion of other work and artistic photos of other notable photographers, even if the subjects photographed are not the same? Tm (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image does, clearly, fails COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
If one was to illustrate the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. It's also badly titled, framed, and described and not relevant to or useful to the subject but this is not the main point here. Regarding prior discussion people may bring up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete The images in the series that have been kept in previous DRs and part of the competition that he's notable for probably shouldn't be deleted since there's a clear consensus that they are educational. There's zero reason that every single image this guy creates for the rest of eternity would be educational purely because he came in 15th at some minor photography competition once though. Otherwise your arguing for inherited notability, which has nothing to do with educational value. At least not for modern photographs or photographers. An image of 911 on here by a random Flickr user is educational due to the subject matter. Whereas a photograph that they took 15 years later of their foot obviously isn't. The same goes here. The specific photographs that were part of the competition that he's notable for are educational. Whereas random images of women's body parts that he took years later and have nothing to do with why he's notable aren't. Or your creating a de-facto standard where everything is inherently educational just because of other images by the same person being on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Header (8319610549).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Source (53490048765).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

This images has been discussed to death in the last 13 years, in more then 40 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Container (51093118922).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - SQL query to find an ideal girl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep, per Rod and Tm; see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because the image clearly does fail COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
––– If one was to illustrate (an aspect of) the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. On top, it's also badly titled, framed, and described and not relevant to or useful to or an actual depiction of the(se) subject(s) but this is not the main point here. Regarding prior discussions people brought up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s)/reason(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Just saying it should be kept is not an argument. Personal attacks are neither. Linking to prior DRs without specifying reasons neither. COM:CENSOR does not imply all photos of nude people or porn or otherwise controversial files must be kept so that is also not an argument. So all that remains is the remaining parts of Tm's overly long comment – however these don't even hold the slightest scrutiny:

1. Just 28 distinct are being used in mainspace, excluding wikinews. That is 3.38% of all the 829 images of category. Since those used ones are not the nominated files, this is (not entirely irrelevant but) largely irrelevant to this DR.
2. Tm seems to have the misconception that a person or series being slightly notable implies that all instances of the series or photos taken by the person are within scope. This is false.

I hope that unlike much of society, on Commons we can have thoughtful rational debate and such requires reasoning. In particular, clear rational arguments for or against Keeping these files. I can't see not one valid reason to keep this file but do see how COM:SCOPE implies this unused file should be deleted. It doesn't matter to my conclusion how many people (and it's usually the same few power-users; lots of people claimed the Sun revolves around the Earth many times) how often claim this or that – what should matter are real reasons. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Heinrich Himmler.png

Photograph by Heinrich Hoffmann. Unfree in Germany (country of origin) until 2028. 83.61.242.133 23:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)