Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vulva Dettol.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:Vulva_Dettol.jpg

[edit]

does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar --Ra Boe (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment COM:PEOPLE has nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment don't really agree on that, identity of the photographer does not make this picture very different from the other genitalia we usually delete because they add nothing valuable to our "collection". --Eusebius (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - it may suprise some people, but sexuality and reproductive organs are in the projekt scope. So, suprisingly we do have articles like de:Vulva or en:Vulva, which even more suprisingly do have pictures showing a specific part of a naked females body. A female who can not be identified by that picture ether.--Blunts (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Certainly not identifiable. Megapixie (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No educational or encyclopedic value --KS aus F (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. It also slightly irritates me that the nominator didn't bother to group together their similar deletion requests and so make it easier to discuss. Adambro (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As stated in the first paragraph of COM:PEOPLE ...do not apply to photographs where the subject is unidentifiable... Regardless notability of the artist, educational value of this descriptive image is easy to grasp and within scope. --Javier ME (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This image is by definition useful for an educational purpose as it is in use on en.wikipedia.org. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I write it here once, but as it would get boring, I do not repeat it in every single deletion discussion, and I beg you to rethink your position for all thoroughly: your so-called "notable photographer" says himself that he is NOT a "photographer" but only takes pictures from NON-professional models just for fun and for his later paintings. And, he is quite aware himself that his photos are out of law in theses countries: http://peterklashorst.blogspot.com/ http://www.asian-sirens.com/blog/comments.php?id=742_0_1_0_C. His own blog has - though containing much lesser critical material than we do here - a warning on the entry page. I am even not sure if he would like to see his older hobbyist stuff here at all. Might be that this is even a problem for him. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Good, high quality image. Person is not identify. No reason for deletion.--Avril1975 (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Maybe in some users there's a need for genital photos in heaps. But how many of that does Commons actually need for eduacational issues? AFAICS no voyeur has to go to expensive porn sites any longer as Commons seem to have a tendency to turn into an uncontrolled host of such material. All that under the disguise of "no censorship please". BTW: Noone ought to imply that I'm prudish, I'm a regular visitor of the sauna and therefore used to see naked people in a relative public. But I have a profound aversion to see people, espescially women, reduced to their genitals for obvious motives which are not educational. Man spürt die Absicht, und man ist verstimmt, literally translated: One feels the aim, and one ist displeased. --Eva K. is evil 00:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you get the impression that there is a desire to host a great deal of "adult" content on Commons. What is the possible motivation? You can't seriously suggest that anyone who wants to look at such images couldn't find thousands of times more images elsewhere very easily. Sure we have a reasonable number of similar images but I would note that this one is in use, something which you seem to have neglected to address. It isn't possible to simply look at this image in isolation and say it is one too many. To delete images on the basis that we already have many similar images would require us to analyse what other images we have. You've not attempted to do this either and haven't suggested a similar image that could replace this one. I would however suggest that it is difficult for us alone to make judgements about such things without consulting with those projects that use these images. It would be quite arrogant of me to believe that I know enough about the subject of every Wikipedia article to be able to decide what is and what isn't useful in illustrating that subject. If you so strongly object to this image then you should query why it is being used at the projects concerned and discuss alternatives which they can use. Simply deleting this image will have an adverse effect on those projects that use it. Adambro (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The COM:PEOPLE argument is irrelevant here since it's a close-up. And yes it's in the scope, as least to illustrate female genitalia. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep no reason for deletion given --Yamavu (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is not an identifiable person. I vote to keep it. Juancdg (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. odder 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vulva_Dettol.jpg&oldid=22376714"