Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Teacher (nude photo by Peter Klashorst).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:Teacher_(nude_photo_by_Peter_Klashorst).jpg

[edit]

It is labeled "Teacher" and very distasteful. It isnt art! This woman doesnt even look pleased about her photo being taken. 69.134.99.24 02:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Peter Klashorst is an artistic genius, and "Teacher" is the name of the artwork. We couldn't very well call it something else. -Nard the Bard 02:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No problem with the nudity but "teacher" is a misleading title and the photograper's name is irrelevant. The lady looks like she is not in the least happy with having her image taken, enough so it gives me a bad feeling. I clicked on the Flickr link and was unable to view it because it requires login and I don't have a Flickr account.--Paloma Walker (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. There's no question of "misleading title" since it's the original title of that work
    2. The photographer's name is not irrelevant since he's a well-known artist. The fact that his work can be unappreciated by someone is a subjective matter and it must not be taken in account as far as Commons is concerned because of the rules of neutrality. Same thing for the controversy linked to this artist: it's not our work to deal with that.
    3. The woman's facial expression is not a criteria of deletion. Have you ever heard the words "acting" and "posing"? Haven't you ever seen fashion advertising where models had a sad unpleased face? The bad feeling you have towards this photo is YOUR problem, not Commons'.
    4. You can't see this picture on Flickr anymore because it now has a "private" status there. But it wasn't when it was downloaded on Commons and the bot review is a guarantee that it had been avalaible with a free licence before (and therefore still can be use under such a licence). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We've had this discussion before and I'm sure I'll be on the losing side again but... Klashorst is a well known artist. He is well respected, but not by the religious right who prosecuted and convicted him in one of these "Islamic" societies where he happened to be working. (This is the one fact that is ever dragged up to smear him). He photographs models in often bizarre ironic poses, not ordinary people in intimate situations. I don't like his stuff and he often ignores the concerns of illustrative photography (such as decent lighting) but his work has been of use on the Wikipedia. --Simonxag (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep No valid reason for deletion offered. Female teachers are allowed to have breasts as much as any other women. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep No valid request (+ non neutral). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete oh my goodnes! what the hell do we need this foto for? we have dozen and again dozen of similar stuff! +personallity rights. abf /talk to me/ 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's something I really don't understand on Commons: why do we sometimes worry about personality rights for a nude or half-nude picture and why no-one cares for others?! I just don't get it... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - and be my teacher Mutter Erde (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Rather than closing, registering this comment: despite the repute of the artist, this still lacks OTRS filing of model consent and hence is noncompliant with policy. Most reputable artists would keep files of model consent forms and could file OTRS if they chose to do so. However, if no one actually takes the trouble to get this right then our policy is to delete. Durova (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We have NO (or almost none) OTRS filing of model consent on Commons so I'll vote vd when someone will decide to do a massive DR for that reason as a proof of logic and coherence of Commons. Until that hypothetic moment I'll continue to say model consent is not a sufficent reason of deletion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 03:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep What is art or "distasteful" is subjective, and not a relevant standard for deletion, nor is the title of the work (Is there something wrong with "Teacher"). Similarly irrelevant is the expression of the model, as that may be the expression that she or the photographer chose for the picture. Nightscream (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete by ABF --Herrick (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)maybe an illustration for "people with teacher fetish"? --Herrick (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. per Durova. Clearly not in a public place, and hence consent is required under COM:PEOPLE. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Teacher_(nude_photo_by_Peter_Klashorst).jpg&oldid=43080423"