Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seconda.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.
low resoluted, low quality image of a mans penis which can hardly be used for educational purpose. {{We have enough of them}} --D-Kuru (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind, I created that template for you :p -Nard the Bard 16:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- It actually was ment to be a red (aka not existing) link but I'm fine with that. However, I wouldn't have created just a redirect but rather a small template which just says that this image is a low resoluted image of a {{{1}}} and that there is no more need for any more {{{1}}} because some user think that {{Nopenis}} is too offending --D-Kuru (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- You know, these people are uploading pictures of their wangs. If they think a cartoon wang is offending or the sentiment that we don't want to see their wang is offending then they need mental help. In fact if I were allowed I'd template them all with "Dude, I don't want to see your shit, we're deleting your file." -Nard the Bard 00:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- It actually was ment to be a red (aka not existing) link but I'm fine with that. However, I wouldn't have created just a redirect but rather a small template which just says that this image is a low resoluted image of a {{{1}}} and that there is no more need for any more {{{1}}} because some user think that {{Nopenis}} is too offending --D-Kuru (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Ronald Reagan famously said, "If you have seen one Redwood, you have seen them all." Some of those who wish to prune back the project's collection of images of human sexual organs seem to have a similar attitude, "If you have seen one woodie, you have seen them all." I do not believe that to be true, or anywhere close to being true. I agree with the idea of not letting the commons become a porno repository. But I think our collection is far short of that level. So, this nomination, and several dozen others, were nominated in a group, and that group nomination was overwhelmingly rejected. Then our nominator makes several dozen separate nominations -- without making any effort to draft separate nominations for each image. Frankly that is disturbing. Geo Swan (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- "overwhelmingly rejected." o.O sound a bit exaggerative to me. Eho want to see the incredible ammount of people who contributed for thenmself can have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of the male genitalia (2009-12-21) For those who don't care that much: If I counted right 6 user contributed (except me aka the nominator). One reminded me to add the del requests to the images, two said that they are agaist mass deletion for this topic (thats why I outsourced the deletion requests) and the incredible big rest-ammount of users (in detail: 3) voted {{vk}} --D-Kuru (talk)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: see Commons:Project scope
