Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by M.Aurelius

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 uploaded by M.Aurelius (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Delete per Com:Nudity

Elisfkc (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment File:Cristina calling.jpg has previously been nominated and kept. Elisfkc (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Have you read COM:NUDITY? I think you have to show that the subject matter of each and every one of these images is covered by other images, and you've come nowhere near that. That guideline is perhaps more subtle that you think it is; it isn't a licence for mass deletions of nude images simply because they are nudes, which it appears me what you attempting. Mass nominations for one uploader are generally in connection with vandalism or copyvios, and I see neither of these in this editor's uploads. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodhullandemu: Yes I have read it, but I just reread it. My previous and current understanding is that if there is already a good picture similar to the nude picture, it should be deleted. Each of these images is in categories along with hundreds of other images just like them. There is no valid reason to keep them. As a side note, File:Clothes free holiday.jpg & File:Terry Naha.jpg both appear to Flickr washing, based on the fact that the model uploaded lots of images to share (with no mention of releasing the rights) here. Elisfkc (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're seeking community consensus on content-based grounds, each image should be considered on its merits (or lack of them) as against other images. So it makes no sense to propose a mass deletion, and I invite you to nominate each separately for proper consideration and discussion. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodhullandemu: I'd rather not have to go through each individual image, especially since it will make the closing admin's job much harder. Elisfkc (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't already gone through each image, how on earth can you justify nominating them for deletion? You're asking us to make content-based judgments on the basis of COM:NUDITY. As for the closing admin's difficulty, the way you've done it here is that you may get a bunch of editors saying, e.g. "Delete 1,3,5,7,9,12 & 14. Keep the rest" and "Keep 2,4,6,8 & 27. Delete the rest". That doesn't make the admin's job any easier as against looking at each image separately. There are times when convenience is preferable, but in this case I believe it's the wrong approach since there is nothing systemic about this user's uploads that warrant a mass consideration. Each image should stand or fall on its merits. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodhullandemu: I have gone through each one already. I'm saying I'd rather not go to each page and open a nomination, and I thought (as a non-admin) that this way made it easier and made more sense. Elisfkc (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'm not really sure what Wikimedia Commons guidelines are about nude photography anymore. I really thought all the image files listed by Elisfkc for possible deletion met all Wiki guidelines. I don't think any of them are offensive; I certainly did not intend them to be. I think the human body is a beautiful thing, and all my uploads are good quality photographs. Whether they are of "educational" value needs to be determined by someone more qualified than me. I don't agree that there are hundreds of images just like any of these. For guideline clarification I respectfully request a review by one or more administrators of all my uploads listed byElisfkc for deletion. M.Aurelius (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Per Com:Nudity. All images in scope. Tm (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep COM:Nudity is a content-based comparative guideline. The nominator is unwilling to give any comparators for these images himself, so throwing the burden, and the work, of finding "similar images" on to others' shoulders. That's inconsiderate. The only criterion advanced apart from that is that they are all uploaded by one editor, which is not here a reason for deletion. Some of these images have been on Commons for 18 months, so its not as if they're all recent uploads. Any copyvios can be dealt with by {{Copyvio}} but meanwhile, this nomination should be closed as thoughtless and lazy. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete this image with a Public Domain Mark (PDM) license since it is incompatible with Common's licensing policies. The uploader erroneous claims the flickr license is cc-zero. The copyright owner retains full control over this image and does not give away any rights. Commons can be sued by the copyright owner. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: PDM is not a license and therefore is not permitted on Commons except where it can be shown that the image is PD for known reasons such as a US Government image. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. Multiple photos are used and so clearly in scope. Others have usually good quality and can be used as stock photos. Not every photo in Commons must be used. Taivo (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as above. --Yann (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_M.Aurelius&oldid=250625988"