Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naked in train.jpg
(Redirected from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naked in Subway.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.
Is it useful in any way? Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Shows public nudity, which is a right many people are fighting for. -Nard 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Innapropriate image, no need for it. I dunno how how this will influence people's rights to walk around naked, btw.--Phoenix-wiki 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)- Delete Not in scope. We have plenty such images; this is a particularly poor one. No point in keeping. Majorly (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Harmless, one of hundreds of thousands of barely useful photographs on Commons. Cary Bass demandez 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Perfect illustration of public nudity and exhibitionism. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 08:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept per TwoWings. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unleletion request now on the way Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Naked_in_Subway.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.
this photo is of poor quality and not of interest to the community/public Norbert Nagel 21:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Do we have other pictures showing streaking in the subway ? No. This file illustrates a form of exhibitionism. The identity of the person is actually respected because of the poor quality. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is another private-crap picture grabbed from FlickR, so highly dispensalbe. And I will not start about questionable FlickR-licenses. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment Sometimes I really wonder how people determine what's in the scope and what's not. Here we have a picture of bad quality (I admit) but illustrating a reality (a form of exhibitionism, streaking in the subway), for which we have no alternative... and it may be considered out of scope! On the other side we have pictures like this one, that is awarded QI, FP and Picture of the day because of its quality... while there's no clear evidence of its encyclopedic value ! (Actually it's used nowhere on the project) I don't really understand how people think... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no educational value so out of scope Jcb (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Undeletion request is now on the way Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Naked_in_Subway.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.
Orphaned file of a blurred man running naked through a train car. The file has no educational value and is out of the commons project scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason. "Orphaned" means nothing (Commons' purpose is to propose various pictures on various subjects, not to use all of them in the sister projects!). In scope as any streaking picture. This file has been nominated before (under previous name), deleted then restored. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Naked in Subway.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naked in Subway.jpg --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is, it isn't used on any educational purpose. The scope of Commons is not to provide an image of every object imaginable doing every imaginable thing. Per Commons:SCOPE#File not legitimately in use, the file needs to have actual reasonable educational value. We don't keep every picture of non-notable people, yet every person is different. If our goal really was to document everything imaginable, then why delete these images? The same goes with fingers, every finger is different in some way. Fingerprints are so different it would require millions to accurately create a sample. Yet I do not see thousands of finger images on commons. There is a near infinite number of possible combinations and differences. That is why we have a project scope. So, how will this image provide any reasonable educational value. Or for that matter, how it at all realistically useful for any of the Wikimedia projects. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean. But we don't have many alternative pictures of people streaking in a public place. Espcially not in a train. So I'm sticking with my POV : it's an interesting alternative picture to illustrate a particular human behaviour. And therefore in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is, it isn't used on any educational purpose. The scope of Commons is not to provide an image of every object imaginable doing every imaginable thing. Per Commons:SCOPE#File not legitimately in use, the file needs to have actual reasonable educational value. We don't keep every picture of non-notable people, yet every person is different. If our goal really was to document everything imaginable, then why delete these images? The same goes with fingers, every finger is different in some way. Fingerprints are so different it would require millions to accurately create a sample. Yet I do not see thousands of finger images on commons. There is a near infinite number of possible combinations and differences. That is why we have a project scope. So, how will this image provide any reasonable educational value. Or for that matter, how it at all realistically useful for any of the Wikimedia projects. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think that TwoWings is right. The location of the train—as opposed to the normal streaking venues of stadiums and college dormitories—is significant in this instance. Additionally, the unintentionally blurred face keeps the guy anonymous. This helps to keep the image inline with the theme of streaking and not making the person the focus. Senator2029║talk 19:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept - was kept at DR once before, once deleted and once undeleted. Seems to have been consensus that it should be kept in the past. I'm closing per TwoWings and the previous requests. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:35, 6 April 2012 (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.
Bad quality, no real educational value. Achim Raschka (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept - there are three previous DRs of this image - two were closed as keep, the other was deleted and then overturned and undeleted. Nothing has changed, this is a waste of time. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
