Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gesluierd3.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.
kein model release, persönlichkeitsrechte verletzt, keine enzyklopädische verwendung smial (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Very much arranged and obviously posed. If one models like this for a painter/photographer who makes a living of selling this kind of work, one must expect that one's image will be published. But the only use that I can imagine on Wikipedia would be to illustrate articles about Klashorst. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete juristical doubts against lacking encyclopedical use. Peter Klashorst has reached relevance on WP as painter nor as "photograppher" --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC) --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Man das gibt es doch nicht, muss das sein? COM:PEOPLE --Ra Boe (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep by Kuiper's reasoning. Also, work by a notable artist, so very much in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png?utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail)
Comment COM:PEOPLE has nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)- Keep not identifiable. Megapixie (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This image has already been deleted because of COM:PEOPLE Why have we to discuss it again? --KS aus F (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- That deals with identifiable people. This person is clearly not identifiable. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:31, 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. The personality rights tag seems more than enough. Adambro (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Must agree with Pieter Kuiper. --Javier ME (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adambro & Pieter Kuiper... All pictures of known authors are valuable to keep and can be used to show history of art. Especially that we have no many photos with modern arts because of copyrigts. It is silly to get rid of that few which are free only because some people are obscurant... Electron (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not identifiable therefore no problem. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This image was (before its recent deletion) used on es.wikipedia.org so by definition it must be useful for an educational purpose. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment See also previously Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gesluierd3.jpg; kept 12 december 2007. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. COM:PEOPLE does not apply here as the subject is not identifiable. Apparently it was used on es.wp so it's within scope, and there are no copyright issues. Therefore no reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
