Commons:Deletion requests/File:Henry Santos en Acceso Total (6302887136).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:Henry Santos en Acceso Total (6302887136).jpg

Small image, poor quality, advertising, not used, out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• WRT "out of scope", about a decade someone called for the deletion of an image I uploaded of a Danube excursion vessel, arguing that the presence of tourists in the image made it out of scope. My counterargument was that it was appropriate for some images of venues which were tourist destinations to contain tourists. I offered the Statue of Liberty as an example. We have lots of images of it, and while some images were taken when it was closed to tourists, lots of those images did contain tourists. I argued that was appropriate as wikipedia coverage of the Statue should show the presence of tourists.

  Similarly, Henry Santos is a professional musician, and, I suggest, it is appropriate that our coverage of him include images showing he is a professional musician.

• WRT "advertising"... About a decade ago I offered what may have been my first defence of an image of male sex organs. The challenger argued we "already had plenty" of images of penises, (actually, only a couple of dozen, at that point in time), and there was nothing special about this image. After taking a couple of minutes to review those other images, for the first time, I found that assertion wildly untrue. The image in question was a time sequence of five images, showing a penis going from the flaccid state, to erect. No other image on the commons showed this. I argued this made it highly educational, for (1) all pre-pubescent males; (2) all women and girls who had not yet experienced sexual intimacy; (3) all women whose only experience of sexual intimacy had been in the dark.

  In particular, I argued that the original flickr uploader's intent was irrelevant, if an image was in scope. This imaage is one of approximately 1000 uploaded to flickr, under a free license, by a firm that specializes in helping musicians market their work. Challenger Yann called this advertising. And I argue that, just as with that dick pic, their intent was irrelevant, because we want to have images of well-known musicians.

• WRT small, and poor quality... Over on en.wiki, occasional use is made of fair use images. There is a convention there to reduce the resolution of those fair use images, to about 200px or 300px. I suggest the use of those image at low resolution shows that low resolution images can retain usefulness. Geo Swan (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• This might be useful if it were not blurred screenshot. BTW the question of derivative work is also relevant here. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per COM:LL and COM:DW. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)