Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ancient astronauts.png

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.

File:Ancient astronauts.png

Unused AI generated fantasy slop. It's not even an image of ancient astronauts. Commons isn't a personal file host. Adamant1 (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the only image illustrating the concept of aliens being around on Earth at a long-ago time particularly the time of dinosaurs. It was in use for a good reason and is still under active discussion whether it can be readded to where it was in use. In any case it's not "fantasy slop" which is a false uncivil degradation that is unexplained and the wrong genre and it's useful and the only image illustrating a certain subject. You are wikihounding COM:HOUND nominating pretty much all unused AI images I made for deletion no matter the quality and usefulness. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't even aliens in the picture and according to the file name their "astronauts" anyway, which the last time I checked are human. Jesus christ. Its almost like you just uploaded the images wituout any forthought or anythimg. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this were in scope, it is hard to imagine what would be out of scope. Insofar as there is educational use for this image, there is educational use for anything. - Jmabel ! talk 06:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree with this and not because I made this image. It's illustrating a particular valid idea: that aliens have been around a long time ago, particularly at some time during the many millions of years dinosaurs have been around and this is a very valid scientific idea. Not one single other image illustrates this major important concept.

Moreover, the file was in use until a user removed many AI images in bulk and the discussion regarding whether to have these and whether it would be ok to readd it is still ongoing.

I don't see any reasoning or explanation in your comment. I know of many things that are out of scope but kept as well as many things out of scope that probably should be nominated while this could be used in lots of educational subjects such as a class discussing this idea or an article about the subject (not necessarily Wikipedia but could also be external). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it illustrates the topic reasonably well. I’d prefer a non-AI image but this is certainly not unusable. Dronebogus (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, this type of content does not belong on commons.

Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What is "this type of content"? Please explain, Fossiladder13. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The page wikipedia:Ancient astronauts has absolutely no mention of ancient astronauts coexisting with dinosaurs; the page solely discusses the notion that ancient civilizations interacted with a space-faring race, no mention of "Mesozoic" or "dinosaur" in there. Therefore, even if this image had use, it wouldn't even fit on the Ancient astronauts page as it would be an egregious case of WP:Synth, probably something like combining ancient astronauts with Young Earth Creationism or another belief which purports humans coexisted with dinosaurs.

-

This art has no relevance to anything other than AI, and we already have enough AI-generated art for illustrative purposes.

Delete Anthropophoca (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons isn't just there for Wikipedia. And this does not show humans coexisting with dinosaurs. It does also have other relevance, regardless of your false subjective opinion. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This image does not depict any real animals, just AI-generated cartoons which are not reflective of any modern understanding of prehistoric life. This image does not communicate any information, nor is it a reference to any particular source which has commented on the apparent subject. This image is fine to post to any blog or art site, but not to an encyclopedia. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not an encyclopedia. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the fact that the de facto primary function of commons is to host images for Wikipedia (which is an encyclopedia), you didn't address any of the other points I brought up. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the only use and purpose of Commons. It does depict real animals and that's not a good point anyway given Category:Fictional animals. It is not meant to be a "reflective of any modern understanding of prehistoric life", your assumptions are wrong. It does illustrate a subject and again you wrote "to an encyclopedia" but Commons is not an encyclopedia nor are all Wikimedia projects encyclopedias. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; this image serves no practical use and as such does not meet COM:EDUSE. In sharp contrast to the uploader's comments, this image does not provide any knowledge and is not "instructional or informative". It does not depict a "very valid scientific idea" or "major important concept". Aside from these obvious points violating Commons upload policies, the image is incredibly misleading from a scientific standpoint; are those supposed to be dinosaurs? spaceships? is that grass? SlvrHwk (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are supposed to be dinosaurs and it does depict a very valid scientific idea and a major idea/concept. None of Commons policies are violated, name just one. Yes, those are grass, and those are aircraft – whether or not they're also spaceships is irrelevant. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The file is in active use on a sister project, which satisfies COM:INUSE, a policy that takes precedence over subjective assessments of educational value. Commons does not second-guess how other projects illustrate content unless there’s a clear policy violation (such as copyvio). No such violation has been demonstrated here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]