Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).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:PHP (9686748353).jpg

Not educationally useful (Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.) SaschaHolzhauer (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep There are over 100 images in the series, deleting one ad hoc, diminishes the value of the series. --RAN (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know if there could be hypothetical potential education value in it showing a nude human, for example by adding to the large collection of photographs that show the diversity of human bodies and/or breasts (or e.g. for potential usefulness in an article about humorous Internet porn etc).

In any case: the file description and the way it's included in the search engine results is a problem. It currently shows up (irrelevant, surprising, NSFW, distracting, useless) when searching for PHP for example and the description describes this programming language instead of the picture. I'm not convinced by previous comment(s).

Prototyperspective (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Keep The deletion requester is registered in Wikipedia since 2013 but was only less than 50 total edits in all projects and only 8 edits in Commons, all made today.

This has been discussed to death. 30 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology.

Besides this dozens of dr all closed has kept, has been discussed to death (including the descriptions) in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev and there is even more as this was also debated to death in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology after some users hijacked the 2019 WikiConference North America to push and from that discussion ot was again established that this image are in clear scope. As was before debated n 2013 when an administrator run amok with the deletions out of process and this images were undeleted and scope was debated in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Ignoring willfully all this previous discussions to open another dr with the same old tired arguments is, at the simplest level, just plain wrong. Tm (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Speedy keep we need to open a discussion on banning new nominations of this series, which I personally hate by the way. Dronebogus (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep – speedy. I don't understand the point of these images, but there is consensus that they should be kept (for artistic value? notability? at this point they indeed seem to be notable for the controversy around them) and the new requests take valuable time from our contributors. –LPfi (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  If there is consensus, it is not a robust one and does not mean it can't be challenged. It isn't even clear why they should be kept and why exactly they would meet WMC policies or why their descriptions and categorizations would meet WMC policies. Being a common subject of deletion discussion is not an argument for notability and inclusion, rather the exact opposite is the case: the high frequency of deletion requests including from long-standing Wikimedia projects contributors proves that many don't think they are within scope. It's just that all of these people come here individually in isolated ways and may in total even outnumber the persistent Keep voters who I constantly see failing in bringing up real arguments upon which decisions should be made, rather than plain-voting headcounts. The deletion requests have usually failed to cite the relevant WMC policies making their requests weak right from the start.

  Taking up valuable time from our contributors is, if anything, another good reason for why they either shouldn't be here or we should simply add a sentence to the COM:PORN policy that, like I suggested, asks the uploaders to themselves categorize their images into "Nude or partially nude people"-type categories (which one would expect they'd do anyway due to "what or whom does the file show? What is the main subject? What are the noteworthy features of the image?"). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Most of the deletion requests are from SPA users, that as quick as appear dissapear.

  And 30 deletion requests kept, dozens of discussions in talkpages, administrators noticeboards, village pump all to the same said (including the last three you opened) are clearly of a robust consensus that are not what you want, as being reject on your attempt to change COM:PORN policy. Also your behaviour of removing valid categories was also noted as "Removing the category without a replacement is intentional disruptive". Enough said. Tm (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)