Commons:Deletion requests/Image:27 male penis.jpg
Do we need a nother penis? Sterkebaktalk 17:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I say we do, one that is not aroused, and also is showing typical pubic hair development. This is in much better taste than a lot of the other ones that have been approved. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razor80 (talk • contribs)
- Of course we have. FLACIDO 04 R.JPG for example (there much more in Category:Penis. Thereby {{Nopenis}}
- --D-Kuru (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is way too many penises and other sexuality explicit stuff on Commons already. {{Nopenis}} --Leoboudv (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Point taken about FLACIDO 04 R.JPG , however, my argument about the pubic hair still stands. I also don't consider this explicit, when compared to the other pictures of this caliper on Wikimedia. I would like to link this photo to 2 relevant articles on Wikipedia, including pubic hair and male anatomy. Really, when compared to the other pictures (showing erect members, etc) this one would be viable for even a medical textbook. Template:Razor80
I say yes. People who would be typing pubic hair on wikipedia are people who want to know how it looks like (mostly teenagers who are preoccupied by their developement) being males in majority. The male pubic hair that has been approved (supposedly because no penis is on the image) is quite misleading because the male model does not even has grown but trimmed pubic hair. And it does not depict how 'real' male pubic hair is like compared to the picture posted by Razor80. Category:Pubic hair (male) if the hair is the only reason is to keep it, please take a look in that category. Sterkebaktalk 05:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Commons is not censored, but already has enough educational home-made examples of over-age-25 caucasian penises, and also has enough educational images of varieties of public hair. Outsider80 (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep since it is in use and it clearly has an educational value. Why are people getting so upset about having a few similar images? Adambro (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)- Keep I agree to keep it as well. Looking to change some detractor's minds, but I don't want to prolong the appeals process either. razor80 (talk) 7:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We shouldn't censored anything. MJCdetroit (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons is certainly NOT censored. However it does already have a more than adequate supply of indifferent images of male genitalia. Herby talk thyme 10:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
