Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bad poster.jpg
Why do we have this? Low quality drawing of four nude children. Out of scope. Stillwaterising (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I conceived this like a manner to put the indication below to prevent precisely the necessity for to put a real nude photo of childrens.And on this way I put the drawing like an educative use.That's all. Vicond (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- What about the many 8-point stars. Do they have special meaning? - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Nude children wouldn't be a real problem, but it is out of scope, since i cant imagine any case in which this image could be used. --Niabot (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete I had read about the "pedophilia" category off-Commons and was curious if we still had explicit material here... and if so, of which style or informative content. This picture quite fits my negative expectations: If someone needs a sexually explicit picture of minors to tell that we shouldn't have sexually explicit pictures of minors, then I'm at a loss of what to tell this person... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, That have sense. Maybe too ambiguous. But firstly I have to say that I didn't think this like that. I wanted to express the abuse and manipulation of these childrens in an ambient that don't have sense. The star represent a fictitious logotype of any mark, product or industry for it's own promotion. The confrontation between ingenuousness and marketing makes this image-shock. The situation here is absolutely absurd since they don't have to known the specific propose of their situations. I want to approach the occasion to say that I'm not absolutely in accord with common's politic named neutrality since It don't have any law to prevent this situation here. Like adult pornography is neutral now, child pornography could be also. I couldn't find other formula to express and prevent this problem in the real future. My purpose was maybe too ambitious. I supposed that all people could see and feel the same that I feel on this picture. But the world are too big and varied. On that way one could say that expressiveness and excitement of Picasso's Guernica could be good in some cases to promote the war.(!?) Finally I hope this situation don't take place never..... unless here. Thank you. Vicond (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No in scope usefulness for this particular image evident. Infrogmation (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep this artist has uploaded a whole collection of their drawings, & yet this is the only one that gets nom'd for delete? should be kept, as part of the collection. it's artistic & topical; "out of scope" arguements are getting pretty tired; NOT CENSORED either means something, or it doesn't. it's not even a photograph for pity's sake!
(unindenting, because it's too much bother)
aside from relevance as part of a collection of this artist's work, it deals with the topic of artistic nude images of children (obviously) & we don't have anything much on this topic that is remotely contemporary; pretty much anything that's less than 80 years old or so gets nom'd & deleted, either as porn, or "out-of-scope" :P
also, the artist clearly doesn't speak english as their first language; if they write out a full explanation in a language they are more comfortable with, can somebody translate it?
as a matter of courtesy, we should allow them a proper opportunity to express themselves
Lx 121 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep i'm not into this pedo thing and it's disgusting and punishable to me, but this one shouldn't have this aspect of child erotic, does it? The uploader should provide a closer explanation and description to it to let other people know what it's about. Under this conditions i vote a keep --Saviour1981 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete I can't imagine any usefulness this image has other than to make the point that Wikimedia is not censored against child nudity, which is obvious. What collection, if the collection as a whole is more useful than its individual parts, are we talking about? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
