Commons:Deletion requests/File:Too hot.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Funny image, but not encyclopedical. GeorgHH • talk 11:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- What does encyclopedical mean to you? --Lamilli 14:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can't imagine which wikipedia page this image can illustrate. Please don't say it is appropriate for en:Heat. --GeorgHH • talk 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might think about en:Vulva or en:Nudity or en:History of erotic photography or en:Peter Klashorst. Whatever. Heat is maybe not the best option.--Lamilli 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Work by artist Peter Klashorst. No reason to delete it. And illustrates shaved genitalia of a black woman. Etc. And maybe exhibitionism. I'm sick of those kind of deletion requests. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 08:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)- Delete. This is nice pic but it has no informational value. Tuohirulla 21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (weighing in rather than closing without consensus) - agree with TwoWings, and Lamilli that it can be useful in several ways. — Giggy 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete really unencyclopedic... __ ABF __ ϑ 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)- Delete Ireas talk•de•en 13:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. Potentally useful in lots of areas, like the Photography Wikibook. Rama 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Let me explain: Its not used and I belive it will not be used. The name is not good and i belive it only should be funny and not encyclopedic. We have enough such photos and we do not need one with a ventilator. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The previous debate was closed with the closer also participating in the discussion. I'm relisting this to gauge more consensus. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:04, 22 January 2008 (GMT)
- I confirme my opinion: Keep at least because it's a work by artist Peter Klashorst so we have to keep it for that. For those who think we have enough of his works, I'd answer that it would mean we have to make a choice to delete some of his works and keep other works, which would be a non-neutral choice, i.e. contrary to the rules of Wikimedia. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just a note: Usually we keep renominations on the same page. But this way works too. (Oh, and no reason to delete. The last one wasn't a valid closure.) Rocket000 08:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As per Commons:Deletion requests/Inappropriate cartoons. Since this is a notable artist, it is not our task to decide which images other wikis want to use. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep image is perfectly fine and yes, too hot. -Nard 23:50, 22 January 2008 (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.
does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 23:46, 25 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, and person is not identifiable. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete auch hier kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'd say it's out of scope because it lacks educational value. --Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No educational or encyclopedic value. --KS aus F (talk) 13:30, 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) 14:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good, high quality image. Person is not identify. No reason for deletion.--Avril1975 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The COM:PEOPLE argument is irrelevant here since it's a close-up. And yes it's in the scope. (BTW I think there was a first DR for that picture a long time ago, where is the archive of the first discussion?) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I found the previous DR: here for the first one and here for the second one. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:18, 29 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) 20:23, 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) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:44, 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.
porno 190.19.117.174 00:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept - not a valid reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
