Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breasts in Bondage 2.jpg

Add {{Delete}} on the image page Notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|File:Breasts in Bondage 2.jpg}}-~~~~ On the log, add: {{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breasts in Bondage 2.jpg}}

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 in Bondage 2.jpg

Poor quality image. Green box added further mars quality. -Atomaton (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

 Delete Same as what I said above. Atomaton (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

 Comment User has uploaded a new version of the photo without the green box. --Dodo (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Not sure why Atomaton wants file without green boxes. Does not affect subject in question. Bound breasts. Does he need to be able to identify person

I don't see that the newly uploaded image is of any better quality. The photo is grainy and does not show "Breasts in Bondage".

 Delete Poor quality, pornographic, out of scope. --JN466 01:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep Not pornographic, charges of pornography slanderous. --Melanom (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Not pornographic per se. Also because of the Quality. There is little light and because of this coarse grained. This made a little charme. Where is the sharpness-focus? On the post in the background? The white point should be retouched. --Fg68at de:Disk 22:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Delete Poor quality. Antonsusi (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Several people have said this and similar images are not pornographic. In US law, which Commons is subject to, the Miller test applies:

1. would the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find that the work taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest?
2. does the work depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law?
3. does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

If all three are answered "Yes", this makes the image pornographical. (Note that bondage, sadism and masochism are held to be forms of sexual conduct under US law.) Now, which of the above three questions would the editors asserting that this image is not pornographical answer with "No" in this case? --JN466 00:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Delete poor quality.Nemissimo (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Deleted as a poor quality private shot which is not realistically useful for an educational purpose (COM:SCOPE). It was nowhere used with the exception of a local gallery page. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)