Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Loverator-What-Women-Want

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.

Files of User:Loverator-What-Women-Want

[edit]

Copyvio images with watermark and COM:ADVERT --Gampe (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete (Those and all other uploads by this user.) Actually, they are probably _not_ copyvios, as the uploader is (probably) the copyright holder. However, COM:ADVERT and COM:SCOPE are definitely violated here, as the images (and the filenames (e.g. “[…] naked-erotic-toys-gift-for-men-women-##) and the descriptions (e.g. “Loverator Original, Playboy playmate Veronika Fasterova, What Women and Men Want, Gifts for men, gifts for women, erotic toys, orgasmic pillow. More on: ...www.loverator.cz”)) are blatant advertising and SEO-spamming. --Mormegil (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep most of them — in scope, good quality, relevant content, no copyright issues (as said above). The case can be made for deletion of some of these images, namely those showing off the branded items without any demonstation of their use. The annoying description and filenames should/can be trivially changed. (Also: some of these models had already a category in Commons.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could show an example of “relevant content”? What kind of educational content do you suppose are those pictures? --Mormegil (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose?, and scary quotes, too? Nah — if you don’t see it by yourself, it is useless to ask others to justify it for you. Naked ladies and naughty poses are in scope. Unhappy about it? Try Conservapedia. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are good illustrations for articles aka glamour, nude photography, portrait, creativity portrait, picture composition, studio lighting, underwear, sex v reklamě, etc...--Svajcr (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need this: aka and e.g.. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) I have no problem with nudity, sex, or whatever (even porn). Conservapedia is really not my cup of tea. The point is not that those images would be out of scope because they contain nudity. The point is they are not in scope just by virtue of containing nudity. 2) Maybe the question should have been "Could you show an example of a content which is _not_ relevant/educational"? Any picture could be a good illustration of its topic. ("Example of a bad picture composition"? And "good illustration for an article 'portrait'?? Really?) The images were obviously uploaded just for advertisement. A few of them might be salvagable. (OBTW you may need this: en:Scare quotes.) --Mormegil (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let us assume, that You are right. It is a commercial. The files can be renamed, the descriptions can be changed. The search engines will not found them. Let us look at Wikipedia from a timeless point of view, for example in 10 -20 years. What will happen with that company which sells these erotic goods? Pictures will be needed from historical point of view. Look at similar historic commercial pictures etc... Would you delete them?
  • Reklamní fotografie automobilu z roku 1934, jak ji vnímáte dnes?
    Reklamní fotografie automobilu z roku 1934, jak ji vnímáte dnes?
  • Reklama nebo informace? Nesmažeme také? Je to profi fotka. - delete???
    Reklama nebo informace? Nesmažeme také? Je to profi fotka. - delete???
  • Sophie Monk pro společnost PETA - smazat??? - delete???
    Sophie Monk pro společnost PETA - smazat??? - delete???
  • Promo snímek M.I.A. - smazat??? - delete???
    Promo snímek M.I.A. - smazat??? - delete???
  • N. Muray - reklama na Dodge, 1933
    N. Muray - reklama na Dodge, 1933
  • Práce na kokpitu letounu C-47, Alfred T. Palmer, 1942 - propaganda
    Práce na kokpitu letounu C-47, Alfred T. Palmer, 1942 - propaganda
  • U.S. Air Force, propaganda, 2013 - podobných najdete na commons desetitisíce!!!
    U.S. Air Force, propaganda, 2013 - podobných najdete na commons desetitisíce!!!

A world-known wedding and commercial photographer D. Markine has his own category on commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Dmitri_Markine . The administrators thanked him even for that.

Conclusion: I can not distinguish when it is a commercial which Wiki needs, and when it is a commercial of SEO type which must be deleted. I would understand the images from scientific poin of view, when each picture in the archive is good, wheather in terms of underground meaning "How was the life in the Czech republic in 2013 and what was sold in the shops at the time...." --Svajcr (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vít! You are completely wrong. Images I marked above clearly break two rules of Wikimedia Commons:
  1. they are watermarked
  2. they are a part of masive COM:ADVERT self-promotion campaign
  3. image names and uploader's name is also a part of this campaign

--Gampe (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Like Mormegil and Gampe ad 2) and 3). --Packa (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I am convinced that these pictures does not serve for promotion of illustrative or encyclopedic content, but to work as a) advertisement b) use Commons as a cheap filesharing service. As the importance of Wikipedia is growing, there are more and more companies willing to use Wikipedia as a free ad platform, violating our policies. Having bunch of mess on Wikimedia Commons should not work as an excuse for this practice. The fact that your neighbor has mess on his yard is definitely not a reason to act accordingly. --Aktron (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - It's not content usable on wiki and it's also an advertisement. Even photos of models are not good for illustrating an article. Most of them are nude. Dominikmatus (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nude ∴ delete? Keep diggin’… -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the problem of the subject. There is a lot of nudes (see Category:Nude people) and a lot of erotic images (e.g. Category:Sex toys) at Commons. The matter of fact are the broken Commons rules. BTW many images of Loverator still left. --Gampe (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Commons is not a means of personal promotion FASTILY 23:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Loverator-What-Women-Want&oldid=190223403"