Commons:Deletion requests/File:Microkini Bottom.jpg
COM:PORN Anomper012 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete Unused, poor quality, out of scope image. AshFriday (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Keep Realistically useful to have photographs of microkinis, these are a category at Bikini variants. With respect to "PORN", the nomination is a misuse of the shortcut as the photograph is not "low-quality photographs of genitalia", so with that removed there's nothing in the nomination apart from the sense of "I don't like it". --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly not COM:PORN, per Fæ, not being in use is not a reason to delete an image (or do we see this argument of images of trains, cats, cars, etc?). Image clearly in scope and with good quality. Tm (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Minoraxtalk 07:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file w/o camera EXIF, false "own work". I open a second DR because no-one looked at that side. IMHO admins should not close a DR only on the initiator's claim; if the DR was opened on scope you can/must also have a look at the uploader's own work claim. Let's baptize this practice as Claim2x issue. E4024 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep Raising a second DR like this should only be for new evidence or where there has been an apparent mistake of some sort. Vague allegations about copyright are not a good reason to do so. The uploader has more than one photograph of the same subject. The photograph is not PNG, which is the most abused format for web harvesting, and is not especially small either. Had there been a supported allegation that the photograph was in use elsewhere before upload to Commons there would be grounds to revisit; find the evidence first. --Fæ (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep No proofs of this being a copyright violation, only shacky allegations of unproven possibilities. Until proof to the contrary, this are merely words in the wind. Tm (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fae, yes, I am saying that there has been an apparent mistake. I appreciate the hard work of our admins and admire their skills, but yes I do find the right in my chest to criticise their actions when need be. Remember Claim2x, it may enter into Commons vocabulary just like "FBMD" did. Our precaution principle does not require proofs on my side; if not, hundreds of deleted files that I or other users, like admin Taivo, from whom I copied the formula in my learning process, have proposed for deletion could still be here... (Perhaps we need other users who will defend the rights of other people whose images were deleted for "small file without camera EXIF" rationale but they were more dressed up. This is within parentheses.) That's all I have to say. Bye.
Delete as nominator. --E4024 (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:One of my micro bikinis.jpg. Interestingly, of two similar images presented to DR, only one attracts attention. Never mind, the other image by the same uploader has already been deleted. E4024 (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted CV. This is a flipped scaled down version of File:Bilder See 021.jpg with EXIF removed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
