Commons talk:Deletion policy

Categorizing out-of-scope filesEdit

Of the reasons for deletion, we have one reason as "Out of scope". The general practice as stated in the policy and also observed so far by me is to raise a DR for files outside Common's scope. It does state that "speedydelete|Reason" can also be used. But I have not come across any such case. (Maybe I haven't wandered much.) Its good in a way that a 7 days period is given to these ex-scope files to debate or bring them in use somehow. But I have observed that a very few DRs are commented by other users and a large chunk of these files are deleted uncontested. Of course, at times it does happen that such files are kept when shown to be useful; but those are rare cases. In the current process where "speedy" is not used and DRs are raised, we create a lot of pages and they add to our daily log of DRs which is over hundred requests. These bytes of data generated in new DR pages can be reduced by adopting different method for such DRs. (I have been told a few times that Wikimedia has gigantic mammoth servers and extra chunk of bytes do NOT really matter. But I still keep coming up with such minuscule space-saving ideas.)
To handle Out-of-scope files we could create a template where files would be added in a category which would be cleaned off post expiry of 7 days. This would be similar to "no source", "permission missing" deletions we currently do. Our template can have facility of giving reason; thereby creating two categories; "reasoned out-of-scope files" and "reason missing out-of-scope files". If a user feels that a file is in scope, they can remove the template themselves and then maybe the original nominator can contest it by raising the DR. This is very much same to en:Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure used on en wiki. We would save some bytes and simplify the procedure. Thoughts and variations are welcome! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Forgot to mention that this has been proposed before and the discussions lie in Commons talk:Deletion policy/Archive 1 and/or elsewhere too with no definite conclusion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I have had literally hundreds of files put up for out of scope deletions that were blatantly invalid, many of these being forms of vandalism. Please keep in mind that uploaders retire, and those that remain are not all here every week and many (like me) have removed their uploads from their watchlists. "Cleaning off" files in a simplistic process is likely to erode many of our more valuable GLAM images over time. -- (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Fæ; also, having to nominate a file for deletion twice because some user thinks his/her self-promotion is totally in scope would unnecessarily increase the workload of file curators.    FDMS  4    15:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be a rare thing User:FDMS4, I suppose. As said, many images get deleted uncontested. User:Fæ, this proposal doesn't speedily delete the images and it gives same amount of time frame, 7 days, to contest. The uploader would also be notified of it, just like the "no source", "no permission" notifications go. If the uploader is away and isn't able to contest the deletion, they would not have contested the deletion raised in DR anyways. Only change is that instead of having a dedicated page for discussion we will have a simple category. This will also separate out out-of-scope (called OOS henceforth) DRs from other DRs. Many OOS DRs are clear cut meant to be deleted. Admins/patrollers can go through the category, actually seeing the image easily, and gauge its usefulness. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Seeing the image is definitely a good thing for images suggested to be out of scope, but I am a little worried about the proposed procedure. If I think the image might be in scope, I can easily comment in a DR, but am I supposed to just remove the template? The category gives no hint about e.g. comments on the talk pages (or even the reason given in the template). --LPfi (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Deletion policy".