Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lynseys pierced nipples.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.
Its me and I do not wish to appear here 188.222.25.55 23:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: incomprehensible request, please see Commons:Contact us Krd 10:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
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.
This picture was posted to Flickr without my permission 151.225.90.224 00:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you're actually the depicted person, you should contact top the photographer to remove the picture from Flickr first. CC licenses are irrevocable, is valid CC-BY-SA-2.0, and the copyright holder is the photographer. Added {{Personality rights}} --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I am not an expert on UK law (IP indicates that the subject is from the UK) but I highly doubt that the file meets com:IDENT if the Flicr account holder is someone else than the subject. The Flickr account however lists the subject as the author/accountholder. If this is true it is unlikely that the subject is also the photographer. Not your average selfie etc. If this isn't true it fails com:IDENT for sure because that means the Flickr account is ran by an imposter. I would say
Delete because it either violates com:IDENT or com:PCP. File seems to be deleted from Flickr or made non public there as well. So even a courtesy deletion is in place. Natuur12 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I am not an expert on UK law (IP indicates that the subject is from the UK) but I highly doubt that the file meets com:IDENT if the Flicr account holder is someone else than the subject. The Flickr account however lists the subject as the author/accountholder. If this is true it is unlikely that the subject is also the photographer. Not your average selfie etc. If this isn't true it fails com:IDENT for sure because that means the Flickr account is ran by an imposter. I would say
- Delete - Per Natuur12. A bot upload that is used on zero projects, easily replaceable. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- delete This isn't exactly a type image we are short of.Geni (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, about the nominators rationale: the Flickr account was and still is called "Lynsey Lust" and image's original description was "Lynseys pierced nipples" and the email address still associated with the Flickr account is lynsey...@yahoo.co.uk [1]. How about sending a deletion-request from that email address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ? Anyway, as the image is of little value, give it a courtesy deletion. Delete --Túrelio (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Per Natuur12, Huldra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing lost. Dignity gained through decency. --DHeyward (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete; clearly does not meet COM:IDENT, no reason to doubt the IP reflects the subject, image is unused on Wikimedia projects, no reason to expect the photographer (a Flickr user) would show up here on Commons to provide further context. The longer the DR remains open, the more the subject's privacy is impinged. I will convert to a speedy deletion request. -Pete F (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment To closing admin: The discussion above should also be taken into consideration for this related DR, filed by the same IP alongside this one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frau mit Klitorisvorhautpiercing.jpg -Pete F (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)- Delete: There's no need to ask questions; we don't need this picture.--Milowent (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete as above. A more general question - How can the CC license be valid if the subject didn't authorize publication? The CC license, after all, grants rights, where as copyright is defensive, and if the copyright holder couldn't (say) use the image for advertising, how can they authorize anyone else to? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. I decry censorship on Commons, but that very belief makes me see this as basically a "snapshot of yourself or your friends" of a type we generally exclude. If we kept every selfie where a girl has a braid in her hair or is wearing a scarf because those fashions are educational, we'd end up deluged in this stuff, and a nipple doesn't make it any different to me. There's no specific educational use beyond demonstrating a piercing - there's no effort put into that like showing the ring, piercing tool, pre-piercing positioning or any similar such thing, not even an effort to zoom in and provide high resolution. There's no context like it being a notable event or distinctive procedure - nothing aside from which woman it is, which is not of interest to us. Somehow this got archived inappropriately while there was open discussion, but I think the outcome is clear. Wnt (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted speedily per PeteF, and per discussion by most of the other commentators. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
