Commons:Deletion requests/Dancer dressed only in butterfly wings

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.

Dancer dressed only in butterfly wings

• File:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Burning Man 228 (241613953).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Per this request by the photographer. The photographer still has a set of Burning Man images on flickr - this is not about that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Kept. Has been discussed twice (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg) and kept "...The photographer now asks if the image can be deleted. No...". So nothing is new. MGA73 (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm reopening this one for the simple reason that I think it was closed in haste, and there is always room for more discussion in these matters. Again, we have a case of a photographer (and copyright holder) making a mistake in uploading an image and realizing it was inappropriate to do so after the fact. While he has no legal basis to demand our removal, he is perfectly well within his rights to request it. I see no reason to doubt that subject did not request that he remove it, especially as there is a certain expectation from participants in events like this that they can participate freely.

The argument in the earlier deletion request focused entirely on the policy of Burning Man and the "inherited contract" that the photographer's attendance implied. That argument was not and never has been the real issue at hand as to why this picture needs to be removed. This discussion needs to focus on weighing the needs of the Wikimedia projects versus doing the right thing by responding to a photographer's request.

This comes down to the question of "Does this picture add something to the project which we wouldn't otherwise have?" and the answer is "no." "Would the removal of this one picture seriously detract from our project?" and the answer is "no." Do we have an obligation to do the right thing as stewards of this collection of well over 5,000,000 media files? And the answer is "yes."

The photographer made a mistake, which he regrets. I'm sure the image is available in other places as a result of that mistake, but it's not our responsibility to continue to perpetuate it. "Do no harm." is a guiding principle. Bastique ^demandez 18:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been discussed twice and both times for weeks. It was closed a week ago as keept. If you think this is a haste why not reopen Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bonnie SG.jpg and/or this Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-11#File:Bonnie_SG.jpg. That was closed even faster. --MGA73 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not about that file. It is perfectly within reason to discuss this again because the issues I have raised were not even discussed therein or considered in the closures. Therefore the outcome of those discussions, while reasonable based on the content of those debates, were also flawed by the lack of full discussion on the reasons for closure. I cite human error on the photographer's part, which he wishes to correct, and human dignity on the part of the model. Bastique ^demandez 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

delete Just like bastique is saying, a photographers wants this file deleted and have requested it here on Commons. We have here a lot of files with nude woman, this file doesn't show anything special so we don't really need this file, so when we would delete it it wouldn't be a great loss. And again we are at a point where we need to choose between policies and doing the right thing, so lets just ask ourselves do we really need this file and the answer is no, we have enough files that could replace this file. So now we can keep the file, follow our policies, a photographer will complain about Commons and will give Commons a bad name, or we could delete this file, the photographer is happy and maybe he will keep using free licensing so we could use more of his files. So please just delete this files, we don't need them and really are they worth all the trouble they have caused already? Huib talk 18:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: There is reasonable precedent that if a photographer wishes to have his or her images removed and requests in good faith, we oblige. I don't see a reason to not do so here. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It is in the best interest of Commons to honor reasonable requests to delete an image that was uploaded in error. Treating contributors well pays off in the long run. In general, it is short sighted to keep images on site against the wishes of a contributor. In this instance, there is no measurable loss from the deletion, so the decision should be easy. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. It's the right thing to do. Wknight94 ^talk 18:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete as per nom and per what FloNight wrote. --Túrelio (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Lets speedy delete. We all know the result. There are more en-wiki admins than other admins. Jo just do it and lets get on. --MGA73 (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

@MGA73, I don't really know what message you want give with that. I'm no en-admin and Pieter is neither. --Túrelio (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If we are to continue after closure: Just to clearify I meant admins that "came from" enwiki. --MGA73 (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Deleted per general feeling here that courtesy deletion of these images is okay. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)