Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No pussy (nude).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:No_pussy_(nude).jpg

[edit]

For me this image is out of the project's scope. ALE! ¿…? 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see any problem with that picture. This picture is not pornographic. If we delete it we can delete most of the nude pictures on Commons. Moreover Commons should also accept some artistic pictures. This shot is no more useless than many paintings available on the site. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete paintings cannot be compared with this picture on a "usefulness" criteria; I mean that paintings images hosted on Commons have an educational value, and represent artworks that belong to the World patrimony. Paintings are exhibited in museums, have celebrity and are commented by art specialists, this picture hasn't/isn't (as far as I know). -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 10:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But this picture is as educational as almost any nude photo. So why this one and not the others? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd like to ask you back with: "In which way this picture is more educational than others?" :-) -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 11:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say it's more educational. It's just part of a diversity of choice that Commons can deliver. What's more, Commons don't have a sole educational purpose. It can also give opportunities to find material for creation (collage...). In that way, this picture can be interesting. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a tasty pic of an Asean /Philippine? woman with a big natural bust. People which nowadays normally are "educated" by porn pics should see the difference between a real bust and that, what they commonly get. Nature beats them all. Mutter Erde 12:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was the educational purpose of most of my uploads: showing a diversity of anatomy/skins/bodies/origins... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this contemporary nude photography has no informational value, none has. It shows a naked body, without anything strictly pornographic. And it shows an Asian body, which is a minority on Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first argument looks like an appeal to consequences to me. Yet I have no problems with that: pictures with no informative or educational value should not be stored on Commons, be they nude pictures or not. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is: if this photo is not educational, no nude photo is. Do you really think no nude photo is educational? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understood you very well the first time, and I maintain my answer. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that means you think no nude photo is useful for an educational/informative purpose. OK. I think it's prudish censorship but I accept. I just wanted that to be clear. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words into other people's mouth. That's dishonest and rude behaviour. The important criterion is pertinence to the Wikimedia projects. Nudity or absence thereof is irrelevant. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't put word's in other people's mouth. I asked you a question because your first answer wasn't clear and you told me you maintained your answer. So it was logical to have such a conclusion. If it's not the way you think please answer my question. If you think a nude photo can be educational/informative, please tell me the reasons why you don't consider this one does since I really don't understand the difference! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the only objection is the subject matter, Keep. As it seems to have already been decided (at least by default) that images of nude women are not inherently out of scope, it would seem reasonable that Commons should have a fair selection of human variation within that category. If we already had, say, a good collection of photos of nude Philippino women of similar body type, several of which were of better resolution, I'd say we have no need for this one. Such doesn't seem to be the case. (BTW, I find the unfortunate title probably the most offensive aspect of this image. ) -- Infrogmation 20:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. If TwoWings re-uploads this pic with another file name as "Asian woman" or "Homesick"... nobody will care Mutter Erde 13:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess you see no possible use of any other nude picture? Somebody must really explain to me how this nude picture is less interesting than any other nude! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no obscenity in the picture but I admit I could have chosen another title (because it can be seen as obscenity). If it's the problem we can delete it and re-upload with another name. As for the quality, it's subjective. I think it's sad to have such a narrow way to think quality and aesthetic. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except the fact that's erotic, not pornographic... ;-) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that Image:No_pussy_(nude).jpg was pornographic. ;-) Kjetil r 22:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you're right! You just compared it to pornographic images! Sorry! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of quality yet. --Herrick 12:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you finally tell me how the quality and value of your picture is covered by the project's scope? What's more COM:PS indicates "The quality of files should be as high as possible" > this doesn't mean we don't accept lower quality, it means we just prefer high quality. --86.67.47.175 13:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. This old photo was a light-Test from 2004! I put in on speedy-deletion. Someone like you, who calls other users "coward", are not fit to be called a normal discussion partner. --Herrick 13:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why didn't you answer before to that question then? (6 hours ago) you are not fit to be called a normal discussion partner > I agree that I'm not anymore because you just did everything you can to make me like that! If you calmly answered my first messages, I wouldn't have become so angry and agressive! And again: I apologized for some things, but YOU are unable to realize your mistakes and arrogance... Your behaviour calls hatred... --86.67.47.175 14:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. Rama's comment sums it up. A concept as controversial as ethics cannot have any real bearing in a deletion discussion. We of course do not accept any random nude image. This does not seem to be a random nude image given the artist (hence in project scope). If notable artists agree to release their art (nude or not) with a free license, all of it can be uploaded to commons. This is the very point why commons exist. We can mirror useful free images such as this one from flickr or LOC. Hard drives are cheep and deleting it won't win us any hard drive space.
In a nutshell I see no valid reason for a delete. I however do see a valid argument to rename so I will request the uploader to choose a more descriptive image file name (and delete this copy later on).
-- Cat ちぃ？ 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:No_pussy_(nude).jpg&oldid=133726838"