Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horny (nude by Peter Klashorst).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.

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.

Image:Horny_(nude_by_Peter_Klashorst).jpg

This is pornographic and serves no purpose on here. 216.15.111.243 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep immediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is 1) a non-pornographic illustration of female masturbation; 2) a work by artist Peter Klashorst (and if one thinks we already have enough of Klashorst's work, I'd answer that this artist is famous enough so it would be non-neutral to determine which works we would keep and which we would delete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

---

• Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Horny_(nude_by_Peter_Klashorst).jpg

does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Erklärt mir mal einer warum wir diese Bild brauchen? Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment - "notable artist" - LOL. Wenn du den Verstand zwischen den Beinen hängen hast, brauchst du sowas möglicherweise. --ST ○ 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Damit ist meine Frage ja beantwortet ;-)) --Ra Boe (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete The artist has articles in WP-projects as painter, not as "photographer" of mainly week and private pics. Release of the person shown there is needed additionally. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Notalbe artist? He's simply a third class porn photographer who makes a fuss to be get publicity by some tabloids - out of project scope and against COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. ^{is evil} 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment COM:PEOPLE has nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. If you consider this should be deleted because of the identity of the photographer, please say so directly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete No educational or encyclopedic value --KS aus F (talk) 14:38, 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 really identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Image made with a top of the line camera. Shutter time 0.4 second, but no blurring due to camera movement, so not hand-held. The model is posing, for a photographer who is making a living of selling his work, so COM:PEOPLE does not apply. Subject not recognizable anyway. Sexual content is not automatically out of scope, and it would be preferable to have images by a professional and notable photographer rather than the stuff submitted from anonymous single-use accounts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep COM:PEOPLE doesn't apply because the person is not recognizable. And it's in the scope at least to illustrate female masturbation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 03:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep Per Adambro, Pieter Kuiper & TwoWings... 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) 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Previous Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Horny (nude by Peter Klashorst).jpg, which was closed as kept April 2008. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Kept. work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:42, 6 February 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.

File:Horny (nude by Peter Klashorst).jpg

Dadurch dass der Hochlader ein anderes Foto unter demselben Namen hochgeladen hat, das in Hochformat ist, wird das ursprüngliche Foto, auf das es zurückgesetzt wurde, auf den Wikipedia-Seiten jetzt stark verzerrt dargestellt. Das sieht unmöglich aus. Ich habe das gute Querformat-Foto mit neuem Namen neu hochgeladen und in die Kategorien eingefügt. Bitte dieses löschen. Der alte Bildnahme ist auch nicht angemessen. Sciencia58 (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Because the uploader has uploaded another photo under the same name, which is in portrait format, the original photo to which it was reset is now displayed in a very distorted way on the Wikipedia pages. I have re-uploaded the good original photo with a new name and added it to the categories. Please delete the old one. The name of the old photo is also not appropriate. Sciencia58 (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment About the name : if we consider Klashorst as an artiste and this photo as his work, we may keep the title considering it as an art title (since the picture comes from Klashost's own Flickr account). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• It was a faulty overwright of the original, it has been correctet since, nothing to do here. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 08:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Kept: User blocked and edits reverted. --Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)