Commons:Deletion requests/File:3 Naked Badminton.jpg
keine Freigabe durch Erziehungsberechtigte ersichtlich, einzige Uploads des Benutzers waren Nacktbilder - Freigabe ist fraglich. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete It isn't at all clear that this is a photo of public nudity. --Simonxag (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment If there is a reason to question the license, what is it? I don't see the relevence of "public"; unless there is some reason to delete beyond that the person visible is nude, I would vote keep. Infrogmation (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not questioning the license. As the subject of the photograph is clearly identifiable, I'm querying whether this situation was actually public: see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. There's very little about the image to give context. --Simonxag (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Depends. Is the middle of the forest public?
Keep -Nard the Bard 20:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Depends. Is the middle of the forest public?
- I'm not questioning the license. As the subject of the photograph is clearly identifiable, I'm querying whether this situation was actually public: see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. There's very little about the image to give context. --Simonxag (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. can we check if the subject is an adult? she looks underage to me... isn't that a problem?--Camr (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep How couldn't it be in public while it's within a forest and apparently next to a beach? The other picture seems clear about that. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep The picture is taken in public and the person is obviously not hiding her nudity. I don't see how it would matter if the peron is underage or not. Otherwise pictures like this this or that would encouter the same problems, which seem ridiculous to me. --Lamilli (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep I believe that pic should stay. It is not violating anything, didn't any one check to see that it wasHomemade? If it is home made then it is not public because the only people there are those two girls and the photographer. If it was just them, then under federal law, they have to be over 18 otherwise the photographer would have been hauled off to prison. And if he was hauled of to prison, then we know for a fact that girl is under age and should be deleted. But, that pic is proof that she is at the correct age and it being on any of the Wikis means it was for the strive for knowledge and the CIA or FBI or any of the other government agencies would have deleted that pic if the photographer was hauled to jail. So therefore, I rest my case that the Naked_Badminton pic should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.8.161 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC) (transferred from the talk page)
Kept per discussion -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- File:3 Naked Badminton.jpg 2nd nomination
A few pretty girls, and gone is all skepticism about "own work". Why? 95.199.16.147 23:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep unless you actually have some evidence. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with assessment of Lamilli (talk · contribs) from prior discussion, above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, since there's no evidence for the nominators speculations.--FAEP (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per previous discussion. The anon nominator seems on campaign to remove nudity related images and has not offered any evidence of improper license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Assume good faith, Google Search by Image returns nothing older. Handcuffed (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep see Handcuffed's arguments. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
kept per Handcuffed. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: Deleted, obvious copyvio from http://www.imagefap.com/photo/149602289/?pgid=&gid=1333299&page=0.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment What is the evidence that this was copied from imagefap to Commons rather than vice-versa? I see no date info at the link. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: You may see that there's a full gallery with the same naked women playing badminton, while we had only a few of them on Commons, and there's a watermark on each picture. No doubt that it was a copyvio. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
