Though note that in practice that it is fairly rare to delete things as out of scope.
It is typically done for people uploading their private images in attempt to use Wikimedia Commons as free storage, or for hosting their advertisements and for things like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Nopenis See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2020/08 for things actually going for deletion (and even more obvious copyright violations are speedily deleted) Aug 26, 2020, 18:18 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:26, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Summary#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose >> >> "hosts content that is useful for educational purposes. >> This means content that could be used by Wikipedia, >> other Wikimedia projects, or other projects that provide >> knowledge, instruction or information. >> > > I'd say OSM usage fits that definition. > > >> Files don't haveto be in use on any other project to be hosted >> >> here, but they must have a reasonable potential use." >> > > That is where, at the moment, the judgement call comes in. If an > image isn't used by any other wikiproject (which their bots would > pick up) then somebody has to decide if it has reasonable potential > use. Whereas if there were a bot that somehow tagged images > that were used on OSM it would be seen that they were being > used by another informational project. It still wouldn't be an > absolute guarantee the image wouldn't be removed, but it > makes it far less likely to be removed. "I can't see any > reason to keep that image" versus "I can't see any reason > to keep that image other than it being used by OSM." > > -- > Paul > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
