Commons:Deletion requests/Nudity from Flickr by Avril1975

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.

Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Nudity from Flickr by Avril1975|year=2024|month=November|day=20}} to the description page of each file.
Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Nudity from Flickr by Avril1975|plural}} ~~~~
Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Nudity from Flickr by Avril1975}} at the end of today's log.

Nudity from Flickr by Avril1975

Avril1975 Uploaded a whole lot of nudity pictures from Flickr over the past years, and though in some of them I can see an educational value, for the following pictures I request deletion based on Commons:Nudity "Prefer non-confrontational framing (e.g. side-on) over "shocking" close-up shots (such files are more likely to be used in vandalism attacks for this reason)", per Commons:Project_scope#CENSOR "Photographs of nudity including male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope." and because Commons is not an amateur porn site.

There is no extra educational value in these pictures that we don't already have in a way that is respectful to the women that are in the pictures. There is nothing that the women pictured are doing, that cannot be demonstrated with clothes on, or that we do not have a picture of yet.
Besides to Commons' official guidelines, all these images come from Flickr and the accounts are mostly behind an 18+ account on Flickr (which should be a sign not to upload to Commons), or deleted. We don't have any proof of consent of these women to be pictured in such a personal and sometimes demeaning: therefore also the precautionary principle should be considered.

There are also several duplicates in his uploads.
While going through all of these uploads one by one, because (like I said) with some I do see educational value, I noticed some pictures have been nominated for deletion before. Is did decide to re-nominate them, to show the extent of this collection: it looks like the prior reason that this user is on Commons is to import nude images from Flickr to Commons.

I'm also pinging @Alexis Jazz: because he disagreed with me on the deletion of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Just before my bath.jpg by the same user, which led me to this mass nomination.

Thank you, Ciell (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As per Commons:Village_pump#Mass_DR_of_sexuality. There are files in use here. "Photographs of nudity including male and female genitalia ... such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope." It does not say "such images are exempt from the rules of Commons' scope; feel free to delete them even if in use." "In use" is "in scope".

"the accounts are mostly behind an 18+ account on Flickr (which should be a sign not to upload to Commons)" How do you cite a section of a page, COM:CENSOR, and miss the part that says "The policy of "Commons is not censored" means that a lawfully-hosted file, which falls within Commons' definitions of scope, will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be "child-friendly" or that it may cause offence to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons."?

As I say on the Village Pump, there are categories on Commons that need pruning. There is "no extra educational value" in the one thousand and first modern snapshot in Category:Tower Bridge. Stop going over the same images everyone else has gone over and try to see how many you can get deleted.

"the prior reason that this user is on Commons is to import nude images from Flickr to Commons." "The reason this user is on Commons is to import the millionth example of 16th century painting from Flickr to Commons." Nobody judges. "The reason this user is on Commons is to supplement our photographs of humans and human sexuality from Flickr." That's outrageous! I mean, we're not saying that Commons is censored, or that it doesn't need images in these categories, but anyone who actually wants to work in that area must be a bad, bad person and we should delete their files posthaste.

I'm tired of this. No "images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope." But hey, "Commons is not censored" doesn't mean we can't apply the idea of "educational value" in a way vastly more strict than we do anywhere else, even to the point that we ignore what COM:SCOPE says about in use being in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To pull out one image: File:Nude woman with niqab.jpg. A work by Peter Klashorst, an artist who has Wikipedia pages on 13 different Wikipedias, and it's in use on two of them (vi and ru), plus fr.Wikibooks. None of which is noted in the DR page. Why should I look at even one more image on a DR that includes such a work?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know Klashorst, and he really does not have the reputation of asking all his girls for consent. I do know that he released pictures of nude (wo)men before, he liked to shock people. Nevertheless, the precautionary principle should be applied. Even though she weares a niqab, she can easily be recognized. Ciell (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change COM:CENSOR, then make a proposal, but right now it doesn't say we shouldn't have nudes of recognizable people. More to the point, you want to delete a work of art used as such on the artist's Wikipedia page, you don't slip it into a large mass DR, especially without mentioning those facts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth and just randomly make assumptions of my motivations. Ciell (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or, heck, another. File:Atom.JPG is part of Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology), which had a DR (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology) and obviously live or die with the rest of its compatriots. (I'm for deletion of the whole category, personally, but the DR has been held, and there's no consensus it should be removed.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case, thanks for sharing. Ciell (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Inappropriate catch-all nomination of many photos with differing details as to subject, quality, and photographer on Flickr. Includes multiple images which have been nominated for deletion before and kept. (I might not object to relisting certain individual images or small groups of specifically related images included here for discussion, but this bulk broad nomination seems more disruptive than aimed at improving Commons.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's is absolutely not meant disruptive, and I like your input on how I can handle things differently. I think this is my second mass-dr I'm proposing in all these years - it's not a thing that I do regularly. I came upon this user by a speedy delete, like I say, and because of the objections Alexis Jazz raised,I decided not to just speedy-del these images, but ask for consensus. AGF. Ciell (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was seriously tempted to open a page on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems for that. You "decided" not to just speedy-del these images? That's like a cop, when discussing excessive use of force, saying "I decided not just shoot him". Administrators aren't given the power to speedy delete images so they can speedy delete files in use without (very) clear copyright problems. We (speaking as a Wikisource admin) are given the power to speedy delete files because there's a lot of complete spam and copyvios that come in every day and would take unnecessary time to DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep badly analysed anti-pron campaigning. A user with OTRS and sysop access should be wise enough to not raise a DR on images that are in use, that's just lazy and rationales like "the prior[sic] reason that this user is on Commons is to import nude images from Flickr to Commons" is definitely not a good reason to go on a deletion campaign as such users are fine if that's their volunteer interest in our content and the outcome is mainly in scope or they are improving their judgement of what is in scope. Stop wasting valuable volunteer time, please. --Fæ (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fae,I don't see how my OTRS and sysop access should stand in the way of replacing the images that are "in use" by other, less nude, pictures in the different language versions. But if I would have done that previous to my DR, you would have hold that against me as well now, right? Ciell (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be spinning the policy and putting negatively adversial questions which for that reason I'll skip to avoid the tangents. You are an administrator, so you know full well that we do not accept deletion requests for files in use cross-project unless there are solid legal grounds to delete them. Your choices made in raising this DR throw doubt on your ability or willingness to follow Commons:Administrators#Community_role or m:OTRS/Recruiting, please make the effort to re-read those pages and ponder whether raising this DR against nudity and knowing how this appears is a good thing for our expectations for the role of OTRS volunteers and Commons administrators for the long term preservation of our content. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You would have been reverted in many cases and possibly even blocked as a vandal. Your opinion that "less nude" is better is not shared by all Wikipedians; File:Masturbation.jpg strikes me as an excellent file for displaying female masturbation; I might prefer better lighting and photographic quality, but it would not be improved one bit by "less nude". What right do you have to forcibly make that decision for any Wikimedia community, especially one that you aren't a part of, as your language list on your user page does not show Esperanto, Albanian or any of the Asian languages that use that image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

#	File	Usage
1	Koitus.jpg	1
2	Masturbation.jpg	7
3	Camping tent.jpg	2
4	Nude girl sunbathing.jpg	1
5	Karolina nude.jpg	1
6	Spread labia.jpg	3
7	Nackt 06.jpg	1
8	Buttplug 2.jpg	1
9	Naked people.jpg	3
10	Woman walking naked.jpg	1
11	Female vagina.jpg	3
12	Nude woman with niqab.jpg	4
13	Intercourse.jpg	2
14	Natalie Lopez and Millie Allen Lavaughn Go Nude in Public 03.jpg	1
15	Katrinas Nipple Piercings.jpg	3
16	Ronda nude.jpg	1
17	Woman in shower.jpg	2
18	Anus und Schamlippen.jpg	1
19	Stretch.jpg	1
20	Painted Body.jpg	1
21	Muschi.jpg	1
22	Hot pants.jpg	1
23	Glamour nude.jpg	4
24	World Naked Bike Ride (WNBR).jpg	1
25	Raquel Baranow Nude at Home (Self Timer).jpg	1
26	Outer labia piercing.jpg	13
27	Vajazzle.jpg	12
28	Going commando 2.jpg	3
29	Black pudenda and anus.jpg	2
30	Enjoy the moment.jpg	1
31	Jodies shaved vulva.jpg	1
32	Razan Butt Plug.jpg	2

Above table of usage as basic evidence. --Fæ (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Es gibt keinen Grund, die Bilder zu löschen. --Ralf Roletschek 20:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Besides all other arguments above of the other votes, the reasons why this user uploaded this images are in this case irrelevant, also this is just another attempt at censorship as there was no attempt at curation of files nominated, no attempt to see what images are in use (as seen above), no attempt to see what was previously nominated to deletion, no attempt to make any distiction. So close as keep. Tm (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as Kept, consensus from experienced users already seems clear; nomination includes multiple images currently in use in multiple projects. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I need to set this straight:

I'm also pinging @Alexis Jazz: because he disagreed with me on the deletion of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Just before my bath.jpg by the same user, which led me to this mass nomination.
— Ciell

This is demonstrably FALSE. I disagreed with Ciell's deletion rationale, not with the deletion itself. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Nudity from Flickr by Avril1975

Nudity from Flickr by Avril1975

Navigation menu

Search