Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pene nell'ano.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.
This file was initially tagged by Euphydryas as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: no educational purpose (and age not recognizable: minor?) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment undeletion requested by SERGIO here. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)- Delete: the actual "speedy" rationale was "...and age not recognizable", which is pretty reasonable and doesn't imply any claim about age but a simple doubt. Above all we have no evidences (the uploader is an obvious sockpuppet) those images do actually abide by personality rights laws. Taking into consideration how does this set of images (there's a third one deleted) carefully hide one of the two partners the "revenge porn"-hypothesis doesn't sound so weird to me. I cannot understand undeletion, but I won't be able to understand a keep-option in such those circumstances. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I requested the undeletion because of several factors:
- Pictured person is not recognizable (there is no personality right infringed);
- Possible minor issue is not consistent (if you look carefully at the photo she doesn't look at all a minor: look at her hands for example);
- Anyway, this was not a thing to delete without a previous discussion. The photograph illustrates an anal intercourse in no morbid way, thus is not so evident it's not about 'educational purpose' (if not so, how else an anal intercourse must be pictured?). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 07:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. And, another thing. I don't agree with Vituzzu about the "revenge-porn": a typical feature of revenge porn is making the subject identifiable, which is not the case. I agree it might be exhibitionism, but the hypotesis of revenge porn is not sustainable.
- Don't forget the third photo. Also, showing it to the directly involved people has the same effect. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. (Sorry, but I do not know the English language and use translator): I confirm my cancellation request, and confirm my motivation (the user Sergio says it is "erroneous", but this is only his personal opinion). The subject of the image can be recognized, and can not be excluded with certainty that there is a minor, a minor abused. For caution, in my opinion, is a picture to be deleted. --Euphydryas (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The woman pictured is not recognizable; that apart the photograph shows clearly that she is not being abused (she is actively keeping her buttocks parted to favour penetration). Plus, just looking at the wrinkles on her hands and forearms shows us that she is not a minor. A bit of basic knowledge of human anatomy is enough for rejecting the claim she might be a minor. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 07:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sergio, I am very surprised this your affirmation: you should know that abuse can be psychological as well --Euphydryas (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm following the discussion. Only Sergio is against deletion but this could have a huge impact on the girl so I'm deleting this picture. There could be personality right involved and I doubt if the girl is happy with this picture of her beiing here. Natuur12 (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
