Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bums and Boots.jpg
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.
Pornographic, out of scope, not linked to except on a single user page (clean-up project) JN466 01:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep, user is just using a boilerplate reason to call for the deletion of dozens of images; in this case he is wrong because the image could easily one day be the cover illustration to a Wikibooks project entitled "A Beginner's Guide to BDSM", or be used as the portal image on Wikiquote, or illustrate a WP article on different bondage ties. To have found a freely-licensed one is lucky, and it is within scope. WP and other projects have large teams focused on expanding coverage of sexuality-related topics, and users finding it personally offensive should not be seeking to delete information. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 14:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Image is not pornografic; high quality. Within scope. Nemissimo (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No Pornography according to German (or as far as I know any other European) law. Same goes for the other BDSM-images shown here. --TheK (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not pornographic, charges of pornography slanderous. --Melanom (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Belongs to float of DRs from Jayen466 and is POV.Sorry, but that's nonsens. This image is surely not pornographic. Antonsusi (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete Only used on one user's talk page, User:Max Rebo Band. Uploaded by him. Scope says that such are not allowed as we are not a host of personal images for a gallery on user pages as this image is. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)- Keep In the absence of an explanation as to why this image is out of scope, this image should be kept. That an image isn't used, or is "pornographic", doesn't make it out of scope. Adambro (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- As pointed out above, scope requires it to be used outside of user space for it to be within acceptability regardless if it is "porn" or not. This line in particular makes it clear that images just used on user page galleries are not acceptable: "Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere." Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ottava Rima, please stop bending policies to support your point, this practice is dishonest and disruptive. The policy does not require a file "to be used outside of user space for it to be within acceptability", it says that if a file is used outside user space on another project, then it is automatically assumed to be of educational interest. "Educational interest" is what you should discuss for allegedly out-of-scope pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Policy is very clear, and as an admin your statement above suggests that you are not abiding by policy. :Policy says: "For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on “Common mistakes in photography” does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs." It must be used to be allowable. This image is not used. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- "does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs" DOESN'T MEAN "It must be used to be allowable", it means that there is no automatic reason to keep. Now for the last time STOP deliberately misinterpreting this policy in order to deceive other contributors, or I'll request the necessary actions to be taken in order to protect the community from your disruptive and aggressive behaviour. Details of the formal warning on your talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Scope means that it must fall within the scope to be kept. "In use" makes it very clear what is allowable or not. Your anger is inappropriate and not within our allowed conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- No anger at all. --Eusebius (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Scope means that it must fall within the scope to be kept. "In use" makes it very clear what is allowable or not. Your anger is inappropriate and not within our allowed conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ottava Rima, please stop bending policies to support your point, this practice is dishonest and disruptive. The policy does not require a file "to be used outside of user space for it to be within acceptability", it says that if a file is used outside user space on another project, then it is automatically assumed to be of educational interest. "Educational interest" is what you should discuss for allegedly out-of-scope pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Good quality and can be useful someday for anyone else. Mizunoryu (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- As to "why out of scope", I just can't see any artistic or educational value. Artistically it's crap, taken in someone's living room, and what educational value does it have? It is neither a good example of rope usage in bondage play, nor is it of any anatomical interest. <shrug> --JN466 18:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Only one user, other than nominator, going for deletion, and said user is (afaik) indef banned. Maybe it's not a "good example" of rope use, but I'm sure most people wouldn't know how to make good use of ropes - we can't all be bondage experts. Thus it serves as an example of amateur bondage, and as the person isn't identifiable I see no compelling reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
