Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "roguenation.org"

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files found with Special:Search/"roguenation.org"

Spam for "roguenation.org".

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sampled a few of these, and didn't offhand see any that should be deleted as spam (although File:The BBC's disgraceful silence on Bahrain's crimes. (44441520981).jpg might be derivative work). On the other hand, all should be changed to neutral descriptions, as I did here at Difference between revisions?
@Jeff G.: other than the descriptions, I don't see what is spammy about these. They look like useful pictures of political demonstrations, etc. Are you saying that the images themselves are out of scope, or is your problem with the descriptions? - Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Can we at least get the domain blacklisted? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 05:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why, if the images are useful? Further searches may be necessary to find files the descriptions of which need trimming, but that's a different issue. –LPfi (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question Don't we have to credit the domain for the photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another example of what I did to edit a description: [1]. I'd greatly appreciate if someone else would also pitch in on this task, doing it well is a bit time-consuming. - Jmabel ! talk 14:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep any file that has no copyright issues, as I agree with Jeff G. and Jmabel that these are useful pictures. The one with the demonstrators running away from Egyptian security forces trying to hit them with sticks is exciting and moving. Why would we want to delete that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI think many of the images themselves are actually rather good and wouldn't advocate deletion. They appear to be a valuable record of political protest, and arguably have legitimate educational purpose. It's mainly the descriptions that are problematic - they fail to actually describe the image and instead contain lengthy political propaganda diatribes and spam links to campaigning websites. Some of the image names are also questionable. There are several others in Category:Demonstrations and protests against the coronation of Charles III and Camilla which contain lengthy antimonarchist polemic. I think the images should be allowed to stand on their own merit and the descriptions rewritten to say as little as possible - the viewer can make up their own mind about what they represent. Can this be done? Cnbrb (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't throw the baby with the bathwater. The description should be trimmed, but these are perfectly acceptable for Commons. Yann (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Images of the quality you see when the Associated Press covers a protest. We need more images of news events, and fewer of puppies and cats, and people photographing their own body parts. I agree we don't need a mini Wikipedia article on the history of the conflict with each image. They can just link to the relevant Wikipedia articles/search_terms with structured data. --RAN (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G., LPfi, Ikan Kekek, Cnbrb, Yann, and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I think there is a clear consensus to keep, but also to make the captions more neutral. I've done several of these, and will do more, but I really don't want to have to go through these singlehandedly. I've started from the bottom of the list above (and picked up one or two others before I got at all systematic about this. Will someone else please help out? This is a large task. - Jmabel ! talk 20:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will help with some, time allowing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the first 8. So far, it seems like the first or first two sentences may often be sufficient descriptions, so this work might not be that hard if all of us edit a few file descriptions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I'm glad we've reached an agreement, and it seems the right one. I'll look at adding proper descriptions to the images in the UK coronation category so the images aren't lacking in (sensible) textual explanation. Cnbrb (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete File:Massacred - Israel kills scores of Palestinians. (42119227062).jpg because it's a photo of a newspaper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: Since that is a very different rationale, I think it would be best for you to start a different deletion request. Personally, I don't think that shows enough to be a problem (basically just a non-copyrightable logo, a headline, and a not-very-legible photo). - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Seems a pretty strong consensus (as is the consensus to redo the descriptions). If someone wants to nominate one or more of these for deletion on another basis, feel free. - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]