Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breasts.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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:Breasts.jpg

[edit]

This file was uploaded without consent. The husband sent a complaint to OTRS today and asked to have the image removed. Although it is edited to make it unidentifiable and it's not a legal problem, it is still not a good idea to present this image when the subject does not wish to publish it. We have a few substitutes in the category and deleting this one will not affect the related articles much. Ben.MQ (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually have a comparable image? I'm not so sure. I agree that the image is not identifiable, and it is widely used. Source is listed as en.wp - do we have any additional information about the image pre-transwikification? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are several files in Category:Women_with_breast_implants that can be used instead. I have checked the original uploader on en.wp. He is the doctor who performed the surgery. --Ben.MQ (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the closing admin decides to delete, please issue a global replace with one of the substitutes in the a/m category. Regards --Ben.MQ (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The husband is the subject? Unless there's some legal issue with wives as chattels that I thought went out in the 19th century, I'd pay a lot more heed to a complaint from the person portrayed than from someone else. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as long as there is no complaint from the woman. Astonishing that a husband should have the right to decide what his wive is allowed to do and what not to. --Saibo (Δ) 00:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do consider that it is likely that the husband deals with such issues on behalf of the wife - this may be a bit awkward for a lady to ask other people to take down their naked photos (just my personal view). The image is uploaded by their doctor, not the wife.--Ben.MQ (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the information provided by the email sender match the profile of the uploader etc. I don't see if it is necessary to email back and say - please let your wife speak to us? This is not a court as we really don't need a distinction between 'I want this image removed' and 'we want this image removed' --Ben.MQ (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The person is not identifiable, the husband is not the subject, the picture is highly in use. I don't see any reason why this photo should be deleted. BTW did the "husband" provided any proof that he indeed is the husband of the subject? It easily can be one more moral troll, abusing trust of our OTRS. Trycatch (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • He did provide some information about the doctor, and I checked the original uploader on enwp (file is now deleted there) and the profile fits what he says. --Ben.MQ (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Not identifiable at all and who is this "husband" ? Grim Littlez (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: While I agree with Andy Dingley and Saibo that a complaint from a husband, as opposed to the subject herself, is not particularly compelling, a keep decision on that basis may very well prompt the wife (or the husband claiming to be the wife) to simply file a new complaint with OTRS and we'll be back in the same position. We could go through those motions, but I am not sure what that achieves. At the end of the day, this is a nude photograph of the subject and even though the subject is not identified, this is an image of her breasts and there is reason to believe that hosting it on the Commons unreasonably intrudes into the subject's private life. I think we can all acknowledge that a photo of this kind could be very upsetting to the subject - it is freely licensed and could potentially be used anywhere. While we might be legally entitled to keep it, this is an issue of exercising common decency, as discussed at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. It's a hard call, but on issues like this we should err on the side of caution. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete I closed this discussion a few minutes ago with the above rationale. Upon further reflection, however, I note that while a closing admin may need to make judgment calls in respect of nominations dealing with legal issues like copyright, a closing admin should generally defer to the community consensus where the issue is one of common decency (as I believe it is here). While I think this image should be deleted, I ought not to have been so hasty to close the discussion in these circumstances when the consensus above is leaning towards a keep. So I am changing my close to a delete, on the same grounds I provided above, and will leave it to someone else to close. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - I agree with Skeezix, and endorse his original closure. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - unless there is reason to doubt the story (OTRS staff would be in a better position to determine that). GreenReaper (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I globally replaced the usage with [[:Dr. Placik Breast Augmentation .jpg|this] comparable file Jcb (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Breasts.jpg

[edit]

This photo was uploaded by Nordela through Flickr Upload Bot and Nordela also did the license review. Apart from the obvious problem of not having had a second set of eyes on the file to confirm the license, the second problem is the Flickr source says this is a PD-mark which has been causing dissension lately because it seems to not be acceptable for Commons. 31.205.15.47 18:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: Notice that the file was reviewed by Flickr upload bot and not by the user who triggered it. The review is valid. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Amitie 10g: since when has Flickr upload bot been a reviewer? I can't see anything in the reviewer archives that shows this bot ever held that status. If it was a reviewer, why not put itself down as reviewer rather than Nordela? The answer is that the bot says that Nordela uploaded and reviewed the file which is not something that is supposed to happen. 90.197.113.98 21:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP address, see the history closer. Nordela just added {{User:Flickr upload bot/token}} to the page, that triggers Flickr upload bot to:
  1. Parse the Token and check if belongs to a valid file page at Flickr (if not found, stops)
  2. Check the license at Flickr, using the Flickr API (if no valid license accepted in Commons found, stops)
  3. Select the highest resolution available file and get the license, using the Flickr API
  4. Upload it to Commons and edit the page, replacing {{User:Flickr upload bot/token}} with {{User:Flickr upload bot/upload}} and add the license found at the Flcikr page, using the MediaWiki API.
In that order, everything automated without false positives.
Still in doubt, IP adress? --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitie 10g: thank you for the technical explanation. Could you answer my question? Neither Nordela nor the bot are or have ever been license reviewers. Yet in the source it says {{User:Flickr upload bot/upload|date=19:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)|reviewer=Nordela}} What part of that tells you that Nordela did not review the license? 92.40.248.95 23:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The upload bot will not upload to Commons unless it's freely licensed. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can twist this round and round all you wish but neither of you has shown that this bot is/was ever a reviewer in the same way that User:FlickreviewR was. Why do these uploads not need the same level of scrutiny that other Flickr photos do? 92.40.249.247 17:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Doubts stated by IP adress do not hold water as this file was reviewed by Flickr upload bot and this bot was as much as an image reviewer as the FlickreviewR. Also this is true to all other images nominated to deletion request by IP adress. Tm (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitie 10g: @Mattbuck: @Tm: How about answering the question with a simple yes/no?
The bot has never been a Commons reviewer and neither has Nordela. Even worse is that the bot was never approved for Commons. I will withdraw this nomination if any of you can show that the bot was a reviewer at the time of upload or that it was even approved. Do you recall a little rule called COMMONS:EVIDENCE? I've shown why there should be concern about this file. Well the onus is on you guys to show why the file should be kept. 92.40.248.251 15:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image appears to be unused. what educational purpose does it serve? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Serve the same educational purpose as millions of unused images of trains, cats, dogs, stars, rivers, military, cars. Do you nominate them to deletion as being unused, as Commons does not delete images as being unused (except user page images). Tm (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below, which came before your comment here, and which is responsive to your criticism. Your comment that "other crap exists" is hardly persuasive. We're talking about this one image. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasnt talking to you, but if you insist this image has enough quality and it has not a single personality rights concerns as this image was taken in nudes a poppin, a public event. Also as i said Commons does not, per policy, delete images because they are unused, except in the single case i stated. Care to prove me wrong?Tm (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Unused, poor-quality image: obvious smudge on the lens, foreground subjects are inadequately lit, image is badly backlit, somewhat noisy, very soft, probably not reparable. Extraordinarily deep DoF prevents the isolation of any particular subject other than a crowd of people. Facial expressions are distracting. We have many images of crowds of people. There are personality rights concerns with this image as well. Not useable for any realistic educational purpose. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination with additional notice of comment by Mendaliv. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Breasts.jpg

[edit]

Z osobních důvodů Stopka (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The uploader has requested deletion of an image containing nudity. While it is in use, it is very easily replaceable - the hi.wp article already has another photo. While it is not our place to make editorial judgments for other projects, I feel we should make a judgment that if someone regrets their choices to upload their naked body, we should be willing to accommodate a takedown request. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Breasts.jpg

[edit]

Poor quality breasts photo, can be replaced by other options in the category A1Cafel (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Breasts.jpg&oldid=808251472"