Commons:Deletion requests/File:Black genitalia.jpg
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.
does not meet project scope, see also com:people smial (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)- Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png?utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail)
Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)- Keep not identifiable. & work by artist + illustration of black female genitalia therefore in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This appears to be the only example of black female genitalia, and therefore seems relevant. Well-known artist with no privacy issues as well. Keep! Scirocco (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good, high quality image. Person is not identify. No reason for deletion.--Avril1975 (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me. It's a work of art under a free license, even by a notable creator. --Yamavu (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. per voters ChristianBier (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
"flickr terminated the account, which only happens when the person was falsifying image releases. We shouldn't be promoting flickrwashing. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)" Bulwersator (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "which only happens when the person was falsifying image releases" - proof / source for this? --Saibo (Δ) 14:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - irrespective of the accusation of falsified image releases, it is required that media is legal in its source country as well as the US for it to be uploaded to Commons. In most African nations, pornography is illegal, and without evidence that the creation of this photograph was legal, I believe it should be deleted. Klashorst has been arrested in several countries for producing erotic images against local laws. --Claritas (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting rules you are trying to push forward here. Can you tell me where you read those rules? Most useful would be a statement on the COM:PS talk page. --Saibo (Δ) 20:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I read that particular rule at Commons:For_Wikipedians#Policies and guidelines where it is clearly stated, and I added it to the project scope page because it was missing there. I've re-added it because Rd232, an admin here wrote that information page, and I presume that it is stated on another policy page but was simply omitted at COM:PS. --Claritas (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Admins do not make policy. And: the help page you have cited is a help(!) page. COM:PS is one of our topmost policies! Please don't simply add something there. Start a section on the talk there - not here in this DR. --Saibo (Δ) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure it's policy, because Rd232 wouldn't have stated it so explicitly if it wasn't. I'll ask him. --Claritas (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wrote that part of the page a while ago and it must have been based on something apparently authoritative I'd read on Commons... but I can't now remember, or find, what that was. So I've removed that point from the page. If you can find a source, please let me know! Rd232 (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it was already policy then you would not need to add it to policy, huh? ;-) --Saibo (Δ) 00:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure it's policy, because Rd232 wouldn't have stated it so explicitly if it wasn't. I'll ask him. --Claritas (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Admins do not make policy. And: the help page you have cited is a help(!) page. COM:PS is one of our topmost policies! Please don't simply add something there. Start a section on the talk there - not here in this DR. --Saibo (Δ) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I read that particular rule at Commons:For_Wikipedians#Policies and guidelines where it is clearly stated, and I added it to the project scope page because it was missing there. I've re-added it because Rd232, an admin here wrote that information page, and I presume that it is stated on another policy page but was simply omitted at COM:PS. --Claritas (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting rules you are trying to push forward here. Can you tell me where you read those rules? Most useful would be a statement on the COM:PS talk page. --Saibo (Δ) 20:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Funny logic: an image that can not be connected to one person nor a place/country. Plus invented policy. --Foroa (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We have a reliable source for this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- KeepThe image licence was reviewed, thus the termination isn't really relevant. The image must be releaseable under a free licence or public domain in both original country and the USA, that's what most people here are talking about. Even if pornography is illegal in "most african countries" this doesn't mean that we cannot have images of any nude black women. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 13:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This was clearly Klashorst's own account. Licences are not revocable. No reason to delete his pictures from Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept - flickr account removal is fine since we have a review, and I refuse to delete on some unproven grounds. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
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.
Unknown if model is of legal age NobodyIsHere321 (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Account created for the sole purpose of nonsense request. --Yann (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
