File:Body painting - HTML5.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) 04:40, 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. In this specific case, there's a prior DR, but it got derailed by two users having a spat, and the argument in favor of keeping it doesn't move the needle for me. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:13, 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)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:39, 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)

 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) 12:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep per previous and above keep votes. I don't object in principle to weeding out some of Pataleev's lesser images, but I don't think this is one nor particularly problematic. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Per which reason(s) precisely? There are no good reasons to keep this and how is it one of Pataleev's better images? It's just a useless uneducational unimaginative softporn photo of a nude woman with the HTML5 logo, how is that quality? Prototyperspective (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:-select- -option- (51559027382).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) 04:40, 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) 07:09, 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) 12:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:33, 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) 08:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Body painting - head.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) 04:42, 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) 07:10, 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) 07:41, 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) 12:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

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

 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) 12:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep categories show scope, not a problem - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  1. There have been many deletions of files which have been not one of hundreds of images in a category but the only or nearly only files in a category (in addition one that is not overspecific but a major concept) and I think you did vote for deletion many times in such DRs. Inconsistency. 2. Categories do not show scope. 3. A problem per COM:SCOPE which says "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". Prototyperspective (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  That argument makes absolutely no sense. Categories can’t show something is in scope. They’re an organizational utility irrelevant to the file itself. An in-scope uncategorized file is still in scope; and OOS categorized file is still OOS. Dronebogus (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Goodbye, Real World.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) 04:43, 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) 07:34, 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🇺🇦 01:16, 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 or virtual reality 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) 21:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Clover (40670426730).jpg 4

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) 04:47, 21 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 sufficiently and better-suited images than this one and one does neither need hundreds of photos nor this particular image 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) 10:13, 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) 07:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete Per Prosfilaes. The images in the series that have been kept in previous DRs and are 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) 21:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Monero (46932213062).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) 04:48, 21 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 this one and one does neither need hundreds of photos nor this particular image 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. For this specific one, none of the arguments in the original DR move the needle for me, and I find RAN's argument in particular to fall particularly flat. 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) 07:44, 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) 20:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tm: Have you even read half of those links? In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, the “winning” arguments were apparently “fun and sexy” and “the kind of images that students will remember” the last one of which came from a user who’s been blocked since 2012. Half of the others included legitimate, reasonable !delete votes and/or consisted in large part of you filibustering the discussion with the same mixture of stock arguments and ad hominem attacks. Dronebogus (talk) 09:20, 28 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)

 Delete No educational use within scope. See DR/"Geekography" by Exey Panteleev.

This isn't an educational resource of any value (per scope) relatd to Monero. No such educational use would be enhanced by the nudity. Nor does the nudity justify its inclusion here. Just what is the educational message here? Cryptobros are misogynists? Well, it's a valid point. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Alyemda Airlines Boeing 707 stamp Democratic Yemen.jpg

1981 Yemeni stamp. I don't see anything on COM:Yemen that says stamps are exempt from copyright (Currency is definintely copyrighted). Abzeronow (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Poststamps aren't currency? This is more of an art and is supposed to no longer be copyrighted since 2002 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

If stamps are considered applied art, then the copyright would be expired, but that's not clear-cut. Abzeronow (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Well stamps aren't currency either 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

All uploads of User:Returntoedenblr

I find it extremely doubtful that the images uploaded by this person are drawn by them. For exammple File:Emblem of Papua New Guinea correct.jpg is an apparent copyvio as google image search readily shows Altenmann (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:木場千景.JPG

本人から「削除してほしい」との依頼が来ましたので削除をしたい。 Yoccy441 (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Sia – Reasonable Woman cover art.png

We need a fair use image 'stead! LeftRightRightLeft (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep – As I said at COM:DR/File:5 Facts To Get To Know aespa.webm (and the ongoing COM:DR/File:Ed Sheeran – Shivers sample.ogg and COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa – Dua Lipa cover art.png by extension), please see COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa samples from 5 songs.webm, COM:DR/File:The Evolution of Cardi B.webm, File:The Evolution of Charlie Puth.webm and others. Warner Music New Zealand is an official subsidiary of Warner Music Group, and thus they have the proper authority to use a CC license. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Just because it has a CC license from Warner's YouTube channel doesn't mean the album cover is included in it. Who took the photo? The rights belong to the photographer and he is the one who decides the license. This file is clearly fair use and it's not allowed on Commons. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 15:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The photograph used for the cover art is very likely a work for hire (i.e. the photographer entered into a contract agreement with Warner Music that the rights to the image would rather belong to the record label). Such agreements happen all the time; very good examples are press agency and stock media services such as the Associated Press and Getty Images. To put the icing on the metaphorical cake, the copyright notice on the physical release lists the name of the record label, not the photographer. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It says "all rights reserved". Nowhere does it say that the cover can be used under a 'free use' license. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 23:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

So did many other files officially relicensed via COM:VRT.

If the point of this discussion is to question the legitimacy of this subsidiary's CC BY licenses, that could be discussed at COM:VP or COM:VPC (or perhaps even w:WP:Requests for comment/Spongebob Squarepants is now freely licensed!). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Copyrighted album cover with wrong license. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 11:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Christian Schreiber (Bischof).jpg

No source and not enough information to determine the copyright status of this photo showing a German bishop who died in 1933.

From the description that we have, what presumably happened is that the uploader was scanning some 1933 publication, presumably German, issued on the occasion of the man's death, and then uploaded the file here with a Creative Commons license tag. That license tag is bogus of course, you don't acquire a copyright from scanning a photo. Without a proper source, we don't know when this was actually published for the first time, when it was taken (most likely early 1930s), and if a photographer is named in the source.

Without all these details, we cannot properly determine the copyright status of the photograph, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2054 with PD-old-assumed. Rosenzweig τ 11:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Ssyahue (talk · contribs)

Artworks by modern artists. Several of these are apparently from Talwar gallery and the uploader may be associated with the gallery. For example File:Honeysuckle and mercury.jpg appears to be cropped from https://www.talwargallery.com/exhibitions/ranjani-shettar2#tab:slideshow;tab-1:slideshow, specifically and File:Rummana - Tomb of Begum @ IAIA.jpg from https://www.talwargallery.com/artists/rummana-hussain#tab:slideshow.

VRT permissions are needed from the artists and the gallery unless the images really are own work. The gallery website has no indication of a free license.

• File:Rummana - Tomb of Begum @ IAIA.jpg
• File:Nasreen Mohamedi, Becoming One (Exhibition View).jpg
• File:N.N. Rimzon - Big Maa.jpg
• File:Bala - Nothing from my hands.jpg
• File:Arpita Singh - Tying down time - Installation.jpg
• File:Ranjani Shettar, Me, no, not me, buy me, eat me, wear me, have me, me, no, not me (2006-2007).jpg
• File:Honeysuckle and mercury.jpg
• File:Touch Me Not (2006-2007) 1.jpg
• File:Touch Me Not (2006-2007).jpg
• File:Hang sculpture titled "Seven ponds and a few raindrops" displayed at the MET.jpg

MKFI (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Endorse deletion request. A secondary, but equally important matter is that the gallery does not hold the copyrights to the artists works, the artists do. Netherzone (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete unless confirmed via VRT that the actual copyright holders (which would not be the gallery) have agreed to free licensing. Seraphimblade (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Casa brasonada Melo Falcão ou Casa Pignatelli, Idanha-a-Nova.jpg

É necessário que o autor da foto tenha dado autorização para publicação desta imagem, o que julgo que não tenha feito. GualdimG (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

A origem da fotografia é o SIPA, no site monumentos,gov.pt .

Os "Termos e Condições de Utilização dos Conteúdos SIPA" (http://www.monumentos.gov.pt/Site/APP_PagesUser/SitePageContents.aspx?id=184e5446-f152-4c3e-ab84-04e0ddcedc06 ) no seu ponto 3 dizem que

"As versões dos registos e documentos integrantes do SIPA disponibilizadas no sítio www.monumentos.pt podem ser publicamente utilizadas nos termos e condições estabelecidos pela licença pública Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND-3.0 ...".

Por isso, a imagem em causa foi publicada no Wikimedia Commons, ao abrigo dessa licença.

Não se afigura, assim, haver motivos para a deletar. Jgqa56 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Sasha Clements.png

This is likely not the original work, but rather a screenshot of a post from social media. Cameras typically don't save images in PNG format. Additionally, the actual resolution is much lower than claimed, which further suggests it’s a screenshot. No.cilepogača (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File also has no metadata. No.cilepogača (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Sasha and Corbin 2018.png

This is likely not the original work, but rather a screenshot of a post from social media. Cameras typically don't save images in PNG format. Additionally, the actual resolution is much lower than claimed, which further suggests it’s a screenshot. Also it looks like a selfie (you can't see his right hand) No.cilepogača (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Corbin Bleu with Butterfly.png

This is likely not the original work, but rather a screenshot of a post from social media. Cameras typically don't save images in PNG format. Additionally, the actual resolution is much lower than claimed, which further suggests it’s a screenshot. No.cilepogača (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Jan Bogaerts - Paolo et Francesca (1902).jpg

Author deceased in 1962, less than 70 years ago. Micione (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Dublin City Graffiti, Bow Lane.jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Ireland A1Cafel (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• It is clearly graffiti, and not covered by FoP. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete no COM:FOP Ireland for 2d works. Consigned (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Postpunkrock (talk · contribs)

Likely not own works but stock photographs: File:Duchesney Falls North Bay ON.jpg is a distorted version of this image (with screengrab info in EXIF data) and File:Trout Lake Dawn North Bay ON.jpg is credited to "Garrett Campbell". Unreliable uploader.

• File:Duchesney Falls North Bay ON.jpg
• File:Trout Lake Dawn North Bay ON.jpg

P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:190611-justin-amash-cs-1007a.jpg

Copyright violation: https://reason.com/2019/06/25/trump-says-he-can-strike-iran-without-congressional-approval-justin-amash-and-the-constitution-disagree/ CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Cartelería de la sede central de la campaña de Carolina Cosse.jpg

COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Category:Election posters in Uruguay has more of the same issue JayCubby (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Jan_Bogaerts_-_Francesca.jpg

Author deceased in 1962, less than 70 years ago. Micione (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Nissan Cedric Y31 Yellow-Top taxi, Singapore - 20080508.jpg

Painfully blurry, bad crop - lots of photos of Cedric taxis are available. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 13:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete if there are clearer photographs. I didn't take the photograph; I only transferred it over from the English Wikipedia. Maybe it was in use in an article at some stage. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Friedrich Meinecke.jpg

This is not the uploader's "own work" from 2019 as claimed. Per , , , and , it is a 1942 photo by the Scherl photo agency.

Which means it might still be protected in Germany and is almost certainly still protected in the US because of the URAA. The file should be deleted per the precautionary principle. It can be restored in 2063 with PD-old-assumed. Rosenzweig τ 14:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Kit body UBTCluj2425a.svg

Duplicate of another Jersey SpHtDB28 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Kanhapa.jpg

Source is dead. No proof that image is 100 years + Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Darikapa.jpg

Source is dead. No proof that image is 100 years + Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Copy of one of the eighty-four Mahasiddha of the Abhayadatta System based on the depictions documented by Jonang Taranata (1575-1635) as commissioned and painted as murals in the Ganden Puntsogling Monastery, Tibet . Quite old in fact. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Abandoned Arts College (Brisbane) - 2.jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Australia A1Cafel (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• What difference between this file (even has been undeleted!) and my upload? Australian FOP works for the first file and doesn't works for my one? "Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Australia" - where I can find the statement in the Australian FoP page? Юрий Д.К. 13:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Kambala Pa.jpg

Source is dead. No proof that image is 100 years + Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Copy of one of the eighty-four Mahasiddha of the Abhayadatta System based on the depictions documented by Jonang Taranata (1575-1635) as commissioned and painted as murals in the Ganden Puntsogling Monastery, Tibet . Quite old in fact.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Mahidhar pa.jpg

Source is dead. No proof that image is 100 years + Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Copy of one of the eighty-four Mahasiddha of the Abhayadatta System based on the depictions documented by Jonang Taranata (1575-1635) as commissioned and painted as murals in the Ganden Puntsogling Monastery, Tibet . Quite old in fact.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Shantipa.jpg

Source is dead. No proof that image is 100 years + Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Copy of one of the eighty-four Mahasiddha of the Abhayadatta System based on the depictions documented by Jonang Taranata (1575-1635) as commissioned and painted as murals in the Ganden Puntsogling Monastery, Tibet . Quite old in fact.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Kit body UBTCluj2425h.svg

This file is my town work, but it wrongly represents the home Jersey of the team. The correct Version is this one: File:Kit body UBTCluj2425LNh.svg SpHtDB28 (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Kit body UBTCluj24h.png

My own work, lower resolution version of another file: File:Kit body UBTCluj2425h.svg, also nominated to be deleted SpHtDB28 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Luipa.jpg

Source is dead. No proof that image is 100 years + Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Copy of one of the eighty-four Mahasiddha of the Abhayadatta System based on the depictions documented by Jonang Taranata (1575-1635) as commissioned and painted as murals in the Ganden Puntsogling Monastery, Tibet . Quite old in fact.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Структура особистості по методу психотерапії "Я-реконструкція".svg

This file was uploaded for a self-promotion article in ukwiki, describing a method only used by a single person of questionable notability. Should be deleted per COM:SCOPE MonAx (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Arbre Genealogique Famille Biem.pdf

Arbre généalogique d'une famille inconnue, sans références.
Unknown family tree, unsourced, then out of COM:SCOPE. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:LL-Q150 (fra)-LuneMarine (DSwissK)-luposlipaphobie.wav

ne contient pas le contenu annoncé 193.55.60.101 16:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/GeoFS

I can't find any evidence that GeoFS allows screenshots to be taken under a CC-BY licence, and no specific permission document is linked to by these uploads. Most are claimed as the own work of the uploader who took the screenshot. https://www.geo-fs.com/pages/media.php says The screenshots and videos on this page only are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. (my emphasis) suggesting that the game's screenshots are not normally licenced in this way.

• File:737 Over the Alps - GeoFS 3.3.jpg
• File:GeoFS Solo Flight.png
• File:F16 Over Colorado River - GeoFS 3.3.jpg
• File:P-38 Over Mediterranean - GeoFS 3.3.jpg
• File:DHC-2 Beaver in flight - GeoFS 3.3.jpg
• File:DHC-2 Beaver east coast - GeoFS 3.3.jpg
• File:Piper Cub Over Arcachon Bay - GeoFS 3.3.jpg
• File:Landing Cri-cri on short countryside airfield - GeoFS 3.3.jpg
• File:The GOAT Airchair ridge soaring at Torrey Pines - GeoFS 3.3.jpg
• File:GEFS Online screenshot.jpg
• File:GEFS Online DC3 over Sahara.jpg
• File:GeoFS Boeing 747-8i.jpg
• File:Yellow GeoFS Piper Club.jpg
• File:Geo-Fs Airbus A350 landing.jpg
• File:GeoFS - Pitts S1 Cockpit View.jpg
• File:GeoFS - F16 Over American desert.jpg
• File:GeoFS - Cessna 172 Over South Africa.jpg
• File:GeoFS - KLM Boeing 737-700.jpg
• File:L-1011 in the flight simulator "GeoFS".png
• File:GeoFS - Piper J3 Cub over Southern England.jpg
• File:GeoFS - Pitts S1 Special over South Africa.jpg
• File:GeoFS - EC135 Cockpit View Over the French Alps.jpg

Belbury (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I've struck the two GEFS Online screenshots, which I now see have PermissionTicket templates. --Belbury (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I just updated GeoFS' terms https://www.geo-fs.com/pages/terms.php (also visible on the Media page https://www.geo-fs.com/pages/media.php) to allow distribution of Screenshots and Videos taken from the simulator under CC Licensing terms. Hope this helps. Xtassin (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Xtassin: You represent GeoFS? Thank you, that's very helpful!

You've written

Screenshots and video recording of the game may be published and distributed according to "fair use" of a copyrighted work and will fall under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

What are you intending to prevent by including the "fair use" clause? Does your game use copyrighted assets?

Your site says that the game features a global environment generated from satellite images and digital geographic data. Does your usage of that imagery allow to you rerelease the content under a CC licence? For a screenshot like File:GeoFS - Piper J3 Cub over Southern England.jpg it would seem that if the game camera was moved so that the plane wasn't in shot, Commons could obtain a CC-licenced aerial photo of Lyme Regis by taking a screenshot. Is that correct? Belbury (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

True, and since I am no layer, just forget about it all. I'll revert the notice and you can delete whatever photo you think does not comply with law at large. Cheers. Xtassin (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Rumy Adams 2025.jpg

Out of scope : Advertising or self-promotion. Riad Salih (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, what do I do now? Linda Igora (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Khole Piza.jpg

The source statement is inadequate, and suggests that we do not actually have evidence that this work is in the public domain or that it depicts who it is asserted to depict. Remember that image copyrights lie with the creator, not the subject, so for a photo asserted to have been created in the 1950s (itself an unverifiable assertion), there is a good chance that author's life plus 70 years has not elapsed. Rosguill (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Drapeau de Saint-Pierre-les-Becquets, Québec.png

Missing evidence for the claim of PD-old. Not found on the webpage provided as source. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Pink and Blue Lined Creative Portfolio Cover Page~2.jpg

Photograph used here is non-free and was not taken by IqraAzhar. A reverse image search shows the same photograph has been used elsewhere prior to publication here. Aethonatic (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Usage examples: , . Aethonatic (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:GordonNovember.JPG

possible copyvio (c) Peter Schmenger - would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I made this Photo on an Open Air Konzert by myself. I am the holder for the copyright and giving the permission to use it for everyone. Why should there be a copyright violation?

I'm not a native english speaker and may not understand legal discussions in english.

Maybe anyone could explain me the problem in german langauge. Dokape (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Dokape: Wir haben in den Exif-Daten des Fotos die Aussage, dass der Fotograf und Rechteinhaber Peter Schmenger ist. Hier hochgeladen hat es aber Benutzer Dokape als eigenes Werk, ohne Hinweis, in welcher Beziehung diese beide zueinander stehen. Daher gibt es den Verdacht, dass Dokape hier unberechtigterweise ein Werk einer anderen Person hochgeladen hat. --Rosenzweig τ 15:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Das passt schon so. Das pe in Dokape steht für Peter. Wie übrigens auch auf meiner Userseite. Seit 20 Jahren. Dokape (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Le teilhet.pdf

Missed user's first upload, replaced with File:Le teilhet sud ouest.jpg. Kontributor 2K (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Sayyed Darwesh kaliyari.jpg

It's not true information Darwesh Kaliyari Armankhan88 (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Logo of Paranas, Samar.png

reupload another file that has clear background Sixerwily (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by J.M234 (talk · contribs)

low resolution, small file size, missing EXIF, unlikely to be own work, uploader has uploaded similar files which turned out to be copyright violations

• File:Boniface Mbaka.jpg
• File:Faustin Kaziteriko Kenda.jpg
• File:Jeannot madilu.png
• File:Prophete Khonde Dominique.jpg
• File:ITOKA BIMBAKILA Henri.png

Polarlys (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy delete This one is a copyvio. Most likely the others. Nicolas22g (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:SevincAbbasova42.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Sevinc Abbasova.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Elbrus Isayev k2.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Elbrus Isayev k3.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Sevinc Zakir qızı Abbasova.jpg

Not used COM:ADVERT file Yousiphh (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Unicode (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:U+1F6BD (53400941855).jpg
• File:U+1F6CB U+FE0F (53481017420).jpg
• File:U+1FAD2 (52739392624).jpg
• File:U+2663 (53292166565).jpg
• File:U+26BE (52363356373).jpg
• File:U+270D U+FE0F (53539124132).jpg
• File:U+2728 (52349174539).jpg
• File:U+2744 U+FE0F (53485570583).jpg
• File:UTF-8 (40308768703).jpg
• File:Virabhadrasana II (53494798790).jpg

Dronebogus (talk) 17:45, 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) 07:34, 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) 12:21, 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🇺🇦 01:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete either or all or most of these because these images 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. 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. 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. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Muzaffer-Kılıç2.jpg

AI subjected file Yousiphh (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Unicode 1F300-1F5FF Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs on nude bodies

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:Egg(Cooking) or U+1F373 (35601151620).jpg
• File:Dice (42379512265).jpg
• File:Beach With Umbrella (39617868944).jpg
• File:Fire or U+1F525 (26482166347).jpg
• File:Awkward or U+1F62C (42207324395).jpg
• File:Hamburger (U+1F354) (52981324447).jpg
• File:Paw Prints or U+1F37A (39917962731).jpg
• File:Pig Face or U+1F437 (36528976222).jpg
• File:Pile of Poo or U+1F4A9 (31891643061).jpg
• File:Slice of Pizza (32713594772).jpg
• File:Spider (51861025358).jpg
• File:Statue of Liberty or U+1F5FD (28658933817).jpg
• File:U+1F30A (52342147998).jpg
• File:U+1F351 (53396546148).jpg
• File:U+1F366 (53376189453).jpg
• File:U+1F36C (53023942748).jpg
• File:U+1F3A4 (53311165472).jpg
• File:U+1F3F9 (53432471998).jpg
• File:U+1F407 version 1 (53053943590).jpg
• File:U+1F407 version 2 (53055195897).jpg
• File:U+1F40D (53441322927).jpg
• File:U+1F436 (53416450926).jpg
• File:U+1F441 (52444579391).jpg
• File:U+1F449 and U+1F448 (53026465370).jpg
• File:U+1F451 (53282551240).jpg
• File:U+1F480 (53324004325).jpg
• File:U+1F4A2 (53097316150).jpg
• File:U+1F4A7 (53337042588).jpg
• File:U+1F4BC (53069999963).jpg
• File:U+1F514 (52939512945).jpg

Dronebogus (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because those images do, clearly, 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 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) 19:30, 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) 07:30, 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) 12:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:24, 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. Also, please stop making so many assumptions and read/address the actual points made. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Prototyperspective: Fine, I add the arguments of RodRabelo7 and Tm.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete The images in the series that have been kept in previous DRs and are 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) 21:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete, per Adamant1 — OwenBlacker (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Kaymakam Hüseyin Avni Bey.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Antonio Rotta, Feeding the doves in the Piazza San Marco in Venice , 1869.png

This file was initially tagged by Niketto sr. as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Antonio Rotta, Feeding the doves in the Piazza San Marco in Venice, 1869, oil on canvas, 51.5 x 41.5 cm, Venice.jpg . COM:Redundant: Superseded files require normal deletion request. The file is also COM:INUSE. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep per above. Image is COM:INUSE in multiple wikis. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Jon Ive and Dieter Rams works.jpg

I can't find any evidence that Forbes ever CC'd their media. JayCubby (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable about the complexities of what can and can't be used on Commons, but it would be a shame to lose this image and/or its derivatives. Please apply any possible reasonable justification for preserving them. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0, see COM:FAIRUSE (we don't allow the hosting of copyright violations). If you'd like to email Forbes and ask for them to send VRT permission, be my guest. JayCubby (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea about the history of the photo. Do we know for certain that Forbes didn't get it from us? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

COM:PCP JayCubby (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful link (to be clear, I didn't mean to imply any of those things). There are instances of magazines using photos from Commons. Are we sure that this isn't such a case? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, please note that the file has been on Commons since 25 July 2017, so it seemed rather like its credentials were established when I made the cropped versions (in late December of 2024). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Duewag GT8 in Sofia.jpg

Copyrighted photo according to https://transphoto.org/photo/1842301/ VilianEst2007 (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This is not the same photograph! Herbert Ortner (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Patriarch Shimun XVII Abraham.jpg

Duplicative of File:Shimun XVII Abraham.jpg, but with inferior metadata Rosguill (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:London March 2018. See profile for image use.IMG 0574.jpg

Duplicates London March 2018. See profile for image use.IMG 0574-2.jpg Adam37 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stalenblad met collage en vier bewerkte witte en ivoorkleurige applicaties, Atelier Van Rijsoort, objectnr 20969-1-4.JPG

Creator died in 1996: her creations are not yet free of copyright (for at least another 40 years) Ecritures (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

̈ Keep. According to the source-website, this image is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 which makes it OK to share it at Commons. Jeff5102 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep A curator of the Rotterdam Museum (Dolf Ruesink) confirmed the stated license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) by e-mail to me, as permission given by the heirs of Van Rijsoort. Vysotsky (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Vysotsky is there something that could be send to VRT about this? Your statement here in the DR is probably insufficient to prevent deletion, but if the release (of the whole collection?) has been confirmed in a VRT ticket, this can simply be pasted on all of the involved files and they will be safe. Jcb (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I will ask the Rotterdam curator to send a message about all files bij Van Rijsoort directly to permissions-nl etc. Vysotsky (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stalenblad met collage en twee bewerkte zwarte applicaties, tout-pour-vous van Atelier Van Rijsoort, objectnr 23618-1-4.JPG

Creator died in 1996: her creations are not yet free of copyright (for at least another 40 years) Ecritures (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

̈Keep. According to the source-website, this image is licensed under , which makes it OK to share it at Commons. Jeff5102 (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep A curator of the Rotterdam Museum (Dolf Ruesink) confirmed the stated license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) by e-mail to me, as permission given by the heirs of Van Rijsoort. Vysotsky (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stalenblad met collage en twee opgeplakte borduurstalen, met wit soutache op zwarte stof, pailletten en oranje kralen, Atelier Van Rijsoort, objectnr 20964-1-2.JPG

Creator died in 1996: her creations are not yet free of copyright (for at least another 40 years) Ecritures (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep A curator of the Rotterdam Museum (Dolf Ruesink) confirmed the stated license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) by e-mail to me, as permission given by the heirs of Van Rijsoort. Vysotsky (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stalenblad met collage en twee opgeplakte zwarte borduurstalen, met chenille, pailletten en kralen bewerkt kant, Atelier Van Rijsoort, objectnr 23652-1-2(1).JPG

Creator died in 1996: her creations are not yet free of copyright (for at least another 40 years) Ecritures (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep A curator of the Rotterdam Museum (Dolf Ruesink) confirmed the stated license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) by e-mail to me, as permission given by the heirs of Van Rijsoort. Vysotsky (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stalenblad met collage en twee opgeplakte zwarte borduurstalen, met chenille, pailletten en kralen bewerkt kant, Atelier Van Rijsoort, objectnr 23652-1-2(2).JPG

Creator died in 1996: her creations are not yet free of copyright (for at least another 40 years) Ecritures (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep A curator of the Rotterdam Museum (Dolf Ruesink) confirmed the stated license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) by e-mail to me, as permission given by the heirs of Van Rijsoort. Vysotsky (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stalenblad met collage en vier applicaties in roze en wit met open feston, Atelier Van Rijsoort, objectnr 20966.JPG

Creator died in 1996: her creations are not yet free of copyright (for at least another 40 years) Ecritures (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep A curator of the Rotterdam Museum (Dolf Ruesink) confirmed the stated license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) by e-mail to me, as permission given by the heirs of Van Rijsoort. Vysotsky (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stalenblad met collage en vier bewerkte applicaties, tout-pour-vous van Atelier Van Rijsoort, objectnr 23615-1-4.JPG

Creator died in 1996: her creations are not yet free of copyright (for at least another 40 years) Ecritures (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep A curator of the Rotterdam Museum (Dolf Ruesink) confirmed the stated license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) by e-mail to me, as permission given by the heirs of Van Rijsoort. Vysotsky (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stalenblad met collage en drie opgeplakte borduurstalen met gekleurd chenille, pailletten en kralen, Atelier Van Rijsoort, objectnr 20970-1-3.JPG

Creator died in 1996: her creations are not yet free of copyright (for at least another 40 years) Ecritures (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep A curator of the Rotterdam Museum (Dolf Ruesink) confirmed the stated license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) by e-mail to me, as permission given by the heirs of Van Rijsoort. Vysotsky (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stalenblad met collage en vijf opgeplakte borduurstalen met pailletten, gouddraad, kralen en imitatieparels, tout-pour-vous van Atelier Van Rijsoort, objectnr 23608-1-5.JPG

Creator died in 1996: her creations are not yet free of copyright (for at least another 40 years) Ecritures (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep A curator of the Rotterdam Museum (Dolf Ruesink) confirmed the stated license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) by e-mail to me, as permission given by the heirs of Van Rijsoort. Vysotsky (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stalenblad met collage en één opgeplakte borduurstaal, zwart en groen, platte tres met schulpen en pailletten, Atelier Van Rijsoort, objectnr 20965.JPG

Creator died in 1996: her creations are not yet free of copyright (for at least another 40 years) Ecritures (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep A curator of the Rotterdam Museum (Dolf Ruesink) confirmed the stated license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) by e-mail to me, as permission given by the heirs of Van Rijsoort. Vysotsky (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stalenblad met twee opgeplakte applicaties in wit “Cornely” tamboereerwerk op staalblauwe ondergrond, Atelier Van Rijsoort, objectnr 20963-1-2.JPG

Creator died in 1996: her creations are not yet free of copyright (for at least another 40 years) Ecritures (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep A curator of the Rotterdam Museum (Dolf Ruesink) confirmed the stated license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) by e-mail to me, as permission given by the heirs of Van Rijsoort. Vysotsky (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Qajar-wahhabi war 1808-1811.jpg

Out of scope: Alternate history map. The First Saudi State's footholds in Iran can be disputed, but it did NOT conquer such large areas of Oman. Enyavar (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:美空ひばり25周年コンサートにて.png

This file was initially tagged by Eien20 as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krok6kola (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Pink simple brief.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Adeletron 3030 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10}}=={{int:filedesc
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as image might be usable as stock-image of a swim-brief. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with a keep if other editors see an encyclopedic use for it. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:היפופוטם בוידאו 2.jpg

Appears to be screenshot (but I can't identify the source; other recent uploads were from YouTube). Very unlikely uploader's "own work" or licensed under CC ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:היפופוטם בוידאו.jpg

Appears to be screenshot (but I can't identify the source; other recent uploads were from YouTube). Very unlikely uploader's "own work" or licensed under CC ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Geeklendar 2021

Same reasoning as all the other Geekography images: not remotely educational, not in use, not individually notable, scope is not inherited by being part of a set, set is barely notable or in scope in and of itself, being “artistic” or “clever” or “funny” is not a valid argument for keeping, etc.

• File:Break into IT (50814606847).jpg
• File:Co-occurrence matrix (51419239754).jpg
• File:Condensation (51161862577).jpg
• File:Decision Tree (51689774588).jpg
• File:Ensemble Methods (51222899322).jpg
• File:Markov chain (51739608901).jpg
• File:One-hot Encoder (51342016761).jpg
• File:Reinforcement Learning (51589363322).jpg
• File:RNN (51521498181).jpg
• File:StyleGAN2 (51711735061).jpg
• File:Swish function (51755763451).jpg
• File:XGBoost (51387009681).jpg

Dronebogus (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. Most of these don't even make sense as technological jokes, e.g. "reinforcement learning" is a woman shaving in a bathtub, "RNN" is a spider with its legs in coffee mugs, "XGBoost" is riding a hobby horse? Omphalographer (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Necroposting, but obligatory “maybe it makes sense in Russian” Dronebogus (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: In the spirit of Monty Python, "I'm not dead yet!"   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:12, 14 June 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) 07:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete because those images do, clearly, 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 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. What Omphalographer says also is the case for many of these or maybe nearly all to a large degree. 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) 11:09, 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) 12:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete Per Prototyperspective. The images in the series that have been kept in previous DRs and are 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) 21:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Монголия 5 цветов.jpg

Вводит в заблуждение AYes (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:4 краски.jpg

Ошибка в рассуждении AYes (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:General American.png

While pretty, this map is not based on any sourced information. It's total conjecture. And in fact conflicts with known information. Wolfdog (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The source of the information is provided in the image summary. The map shows where in the original map the black squares indicating lack of distinctive regionalisms are concentrated. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Map General American.svg

While pretty, this map is not based on any sourced information. It's total conjecture. And in fact conflicts with known information. Wolfdog (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Knight's Uintathere.PNG

Appears to be a mural from 1931, so perhaps not public domain? FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep Thank you for the better info on original source. 1931 US works required specific notice of copyright, which this lacks. (License info changed accordingly.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Keep 1931 US works would have had to be renewed 28 years later; the artwork renewals are here and here, and as you can see, there's no renewals by Knight.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

In that case, I'll upload the much larger colour version I linked to (as well as others from that site of this age). FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I've uploaded the large version here, so perhaps this tiny version is obsolete anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Randhir Jaiswal Indian Foreign Service Diplomat (cropped).jpg

No proper Licensing and acknowledgement of source *$EYUO$ (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

source added on parent page File:Randhir Jaiswal Indian Foreign Service Diplomat.jpg. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)