Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The gogo-dancers red G-String.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems to me that this image runs afoul of personality rights, *ahem*, in a few ways. Commons should not be hosting it. Patstuart (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep No person identifiable, so no personality rights issues. --Simonxag 02:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete As Patstuart. Plus the fact that Commons is overwhelmed with pictures of this theme. There are a category containing images of male genitalia, where a special sign has been put up to discourage further uploading. Maybe it is time for a similar sign regarding female buttocks as well? Jorva 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are only 23 pictures in the whole category, hardly enough to swamp the commons. --Simonxag 22:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not all of them are categorized as such. There are a lot in related categories, like underwear-categories, where it is obvious that the pices of cloth is of secondary importance. Jorva 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The presence of buttocks in certain sorts of picture is inevitable. We all have them, otherwise our legs would fall off. That's a far cry from saying there are loads of near-identical (and hence useless) uploads, such as we have of penises. --Simonxag 02:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I guess "we all have them" is the reason why there are 105 female buttocks and 36 male buttocks searchable on these keywords in the image namespace... Seriously, the kind of pictures I am talking about is nothing else but soft porn, poorly disguised as "informative" works of different kind of underwear. Should Commons host more than a representative amount of soft porn, while other kinds of porn is kept down in numbers? Male genitalia are not more identical than female buttocks. Half of mankind has one, each one unique, each one alike. Jorva 23:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not porn, it's just simple nudity. And there's a slight difference between buttocks and a penis: today it's okay to show buttocks in commercials, movies and on the beach, but it's not common to show your penis in public in the western world. --91.65.124.34 12:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote soft porn, which at least in Swedish is understood as pictures not neccesarily showing naked skin or genitalia, but still created in order to awake people's (mostly heterosexual men's) sexual desires. I have no problem with naked penises or naked vulvas (in their proper categories as pornography or human anatomy) , but I do have a problem with 100+ female buttock pictures similar to this [Image:Upskirt3.jpg] in categories named things like "stockings". I am not against porn or nudity in general, I am against pornification of other areas. Which brings us back to the subject of this discussion (red-G-string-image) - is this an informative bild on the subject G-strings or not? Does this picture have any significant information value at all? Jorva 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that the picture considered here for deletion is in Category:Striptease; it's one of 26 that document that art-form. All (bar a couple of underexposed shots that do need deleting) could count as porn for somebody's or other. None, certainly not this one, are explicit enough for a real-world soft-porn mag like "Playboy". The Commons are not censored (except insofar as US law requires). I suggest that editors who dislike women's bottoms stop looking at pictures of strippers and underwear. --Simonxag 23:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now, Simonxag, you went a bit too far. There is no one here disliking women's bottoms. I have spent hours bringing more structure to the underwear-category (with male and female sub-categories) lately and I will continue doing this until these categories are easily navigable and as non-sexistic as possible. You don't need to teach anyone about explicity in porn either, the only thing that differs this picture from a general non-nude soft porn picture is the image quality and the light conditions. Soft porn pictures that don't reveal everything do have their market. Before this image was nominated for deletion I changed the category from G-string to women's G-string, but I will now take it out of the underwear categories by the above stated reasons. If these kind of pictures are kept in porn/striptease categories, I have no objections. After proper categorization there will sooner or later be too many of the same theme and som sort of limitation will be called for. Jorva 00:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not porn, it's just simple nudity. And there's a slight difference between buttocks and a penis: today it's okay to show buttocks in commercials, movies and on the beach, but it's not common to show your penis in public in the western world. --91.65.124.34 12:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I guess "we all have them" is the reason why there are 105 female buttocks and 36 male buttocks searchable on these keywords in the image namespace... Seriously, the kind of pictures I am talking about is nothing else but soft porn, poorly disguised as "informative" works of different kind of underwear. Should Commons host more than a representative amount of soft porn, while other kinds of porn is kept down in numbers? Male genitalia are not more identical than female buttocks. Half of mankind has one, each one unique, each one alike. Jorva 23:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- The presence of buttocks in certain sorts of picture is inevitable. We all have them, otherwise our legs would fall off. That's a far cry from saying there are loads of near-identical (and hence useless) uploads, such as we have of penises. --Simonxag 02:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not all of them are categorized as such. There are a lot in related categories, like underwear-categories, where it is obvious that the pices of cloth is of secondary importance. Jorva 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Provisional keep Image is not redundant in light of the number of buttock/striptease related images as it illustrates the phenomenon "upskirt", the Wikipedia article on which is badly in need of a photograph like this. Barring explicit, obvious legal rights violation rationale, this image is needed by the Wikicommons project. If clearcut legal violations can be shown, I'll change to delete. Until then, it's an obvious keep.Astrojunta 01:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I added this to w:Upskirt today, before noticing the deletion request. Upskirt has had problems with questionably sourced images. I'm very interested in seeing how this is decided. An image like this is needed, but not at the expense of personality rights or other legal concerns. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per 'Simonxag' 81.159.104.55 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Keep Per Simonxag and Astrojunta. -Oreo Priest 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep No reason to delete. Richiex 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I don't see a way this person can be identified. This photo is very useful in Upskirt article. Poli 05:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Used in a Wikipedia article, not against any specific rule. Mormegil 20:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
