Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female Genitalia.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.
was deleted completely out of process, against policy without a DR (reason: "Out of project scope: Replaceable and/or low quality pornographic content") by User:Masur
- I have restored it now to enable a discussion. --Saibo (Δ) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Following (do not edit) ↓↓ the discussion from Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Female_Genitalia.jpg (permlink):
File:Female Genitalia.jpg was deleted completely out of process, against policy without a DR (reason: "Out of project scope: Replaceable and/or low quality pornographic content") by User:Masur who even refused to restore it. For some reason I forgot to bring this up here earlier. --Saibo (Δ) 23:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- You could have restored it the same way as Masur deleted it (without a broader discussion) - for filling a DR right afterwards. I guess that you would not get much opposition for acting like this... It should be an instance where someone can be bold. :-) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- +1 --Leyo 00:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea (except that I wasn't admin when I asked Masur to undel) - next time. Thanks for your support. Lets have the nosense discussion here. --Saibo (Δ) 00:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- +1 --Leyo 00:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- One inconvenient in discussing here without previous undeletion: only people with the right to view deleted pages could evaluate the picture, everybody else lacks this information... Grand-Duc (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Support Please undelete because 1) it allows everybody to view the image and thus make up their mind 2) because it's what was suppose to happen anyhow 3) because if the image will be deleted because of 'out of scope' it should be possible to rescue the image for other projects which may accept a freely licenced image in that scope. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 11:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- The image in question is blurry and not educationally useful, but I kind of agree that it shouldn't have been speedied. I see little point in restoring it, though, because I can't imagine a project needing to use it. Powers (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- A little point would be so that non-ops can also contribute to the discussion. Alternatively as it's becoming a common occurence, we need to discuss the possibility for established users to view deleted content. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am confident in stating that the image is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. You may find an admin willing to undelete it just to have it deleted again after two weeks, but I'm not going to. Powers (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- You see it's exactly this type of rude behaviour which makes people leave and stop contributing to WikiMedia projects. Of course, i'm not going to leave, i've been hardened to this but you need to rethink your attitude to those who actually contribute. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 17:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am confident in stating that the image is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. You may find an admin willing to undelete it just to have it deleted again after two weeks, but I'm not going to. Powers (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- A little point would be so that non-ops can also contribute to the discussion. Alternatively as it's becoming a common occurence, we need to discuss the possibility for established users to view deleted content. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Quality is dire - we need some of these images, we do not need every possible blurred image. I understand other sites would be happy to have such images. --Herby talk thyme 17:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)- Support I see no legitimate reason for deletion -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Before (do not edit) ↑↑ the discussion from Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Female_Genitalia.jpg (permlink).
- ↓↓ DR discussion
@ VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 17:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC):
- I'm sorry you found my "behavior" rude, though I don't think my refusal to act is fairly characterized as such. I am not a mere functionary; I can use my own judgement in performing admin actions, and I personally did not wish to be responsible for undeleting a clearly unacceptable file. I have no problem if someone else is willing to do so, but it was not rude of me to refuse. Powers (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep The image does seem to be below average if it would be a pornographic site that we were running, but it is not, so we must ask ourselves if it's good enough quality for educational use, and i believe that it is. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete Very cute I must admit, and quite an unusual angle as far as home-mades go, but totally out of focus. That would go in my personal reject bin had I taken it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)- Keep - i see no reason to delete -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete; quality is very low, and we have plenty of pictures of female genitalia, so we have no compelling reason to keep a low-quality one. Powers (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- which ones are there for replacement? --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Take your pick... (Category:Female human genitalia), and it's not as if anything links to the file. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- First of all: you may know that use by embedding in a page on another wiki is no requirement for our files. About 66% of our files are not in "use". Second: You may know too that the file was deleted between 28 February 2011 and 9 December 2011... how should it be "linked"?! Third: I ask for specific file names since I guess that you cannot find many. Your task if you want to delete this file. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- How about File:Vagina ultra02.JPG or File:Geil2.JPG. Really, it's difficult to understand how you're defending the usefulness of this image, as it really is quite poor quality. Powers (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- File:Vagina ultra02.JPG is similar - but nothing more. Mind e.g. the different finger placement and.. well - angle, color... And, ehm... only two similar images and you want to delete one of them? I thought we are at Commons and not at Wikipedia in year 2004 where only one image of a subject was kept (the one which was in the article). Your argument is not convincing at all. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- So what, exactly, do you think are the benefits of this particular image that override its obvious drawbacks? Also, why do you think we have to convince you of anything so that it would be kept? Are we really so short of pussy that we're willing to keep low quality images like this one? Personally I wouldn't want Commons to get an image (pardon the pun) for a repository of low quality porno tat (or at least no more than it has already has). Or don't you believe that we should be going for quality over quantity. In any case, this image has already received far more attention than it deserves. Do we really need to have images of every vagina/anus angle matched to a compass point? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- If some guys here are deleting all images of the human body (without clothes) - yes. Then this image is obviously useful - maybe there were better ones - but they got deleted. --Saibo (Δ) 14:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well I'm not one of those people who think nudity should be excised from the commons. As I previously stated I think this is quite a cute pudenda and if the image was in better shape I'd be fighting for it to be kept, but no amount of cute pussy could dissuade me from recommending that this lo-res, out-of-focus pic should be kept. I'd rather no pics than low quality ones, but you quite obviously don't mind sub-par images. I wish you were one of my clients, I'd only have to spend 5-mins on each image, instead of doing my best to get the best one I can. I can only assume that you have low standards when it comes to crotch shots. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Last sentence means we both will have no further conversation about this topic (this includes that I do not comment on the 5 minutes thing). See you somewhere else. --Saibo (Δ) 17:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well I'm not one of those people who think nudity should be excised from the commons. As I previously stated I think this is quite a cute pudenda and if the image was in better shape I'd be fighting for it to be kept, but no amount of cute pussy could dissuade me from recommending that this lo-res, out-of-focus pic should be kept. I'd rather no pics than low quality ones, but you quite obviously don't mind sub-par images. I wish you were one of my clients, I'd only have to spend 5-mins on each image, instead of doing my best to get the best one I can. I can only assume that you have low standards when it comes to crotch shots. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- If some guys here are deleting all images of the human body (without clothes) - yes. Then this image is obviously useful - maybe there were better ones - but they got deleted. --Saibo (Δ) 14:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain how the subtle differences ("different finger placement", really?) render File:Vagina ultra02.JPG unsuitable for some educational use that this file would be suitable for. Powers (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say it is unsuitable - just this may be preferred for some uses. We are here to provide a great media repository - that doesn't mean one editorially chosen picture per subject. --Saibo (Δ) 15:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Or low quality, home-brew tat either. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless, I can't imagine any educational situation in which someone would prefer this blurry shot over one with better technical quality and similar composition. Neither have you suggested any such situation. Powers (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say it is unsuitable - just this may be preferred for some uses. We are here to provide a great media repository - that doesn't mean one editorially chosen picture per subject. --Saibo (Δ) 15:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- So what, exactly, do you think are the benefits of this particular image that override its obvious drawbacks? Also, why do you think we have to convince you of anything so that it would be kept? Are we really so short of pussy that we're willing to keep low quality images like this one? Personally I wouldn't want Commons to get an image (pardon the pun) for a repository of low quality porno tat (or at least no more than it has already has). Or don't you believe that we should be going for quality over quantity. In any case, this image has already received far more attention than it deserves. Do we really need to have images of every vagina/anus angle matched to a compass point? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- File:Vagina ultra02.JPG is similar - but nothing more. Mind e.g. the different finger placement and.. well - angle, color... And, ehm... only two similar images and you want to delete one of them? I thought we are at Commons and not at Wikipedia in year 2004 where only one image of a subject was kept (the one which was in the article). Your argument is not convincing at all. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- How about File:Vagina ultra02.JPG or File:Geil2.JPG. Really, it's difficult to understand how you're defending the usefulness of this image, as it really is quite poor quality. Powers (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- First of all: you may know that use by embedding in a page on another wiki is no requirement for our files. About 66% of our files are not in "use". Second: You may know too that the file was deleted between 28 February 2011 and 9 December 2011... how should it be "linked"?! Third: I ask for specific file names since I guess that you cannot find many. Your task if you want to delete this file. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Take your pick... (Category:Female human genitalia), and it's not as if anything links to the file. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- which ones are there for replacement? --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Like Powers, wonder why we are debating about such a bad image. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Powers. --JN466 00:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, good quality image, value for use on multiple projects. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are we looking at the same image? This image is blurry and poorly lit; on what grounds do you claim it is good quality? Powers (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I think it's fair to say this discussion has gone on long enough. The image is within our educational remit, however it is undeniably bad quality, and we have many better images in the female genitalia category. I accept this is one of very few of this orientation, but I don't feel a 90 degree rotation of the image is sufficient grounds for keeping it. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
