Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vulva 2.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.

File:Vulva_2.jpg

does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete auch hier kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment don't really agree on that, identity of the photographer does not make this picture very different from the other genitalia we usually delete because they add nothing valuable to our "collection". --Eusebius (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Even porn pictures by so called "notable artists" are still porn pictures und do not contribute to the project scope --KS aus F (talk) 13:32, 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) 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I haven't seen the image (which seems to have been prematurely deleted) but if the artist is notable (as mattbuck asserts above; I don't know the artist), wouldn't the image be worth keeping as an example of that artist's work, independently of how usable it is for any other purpose? I don't think that would be less applicable simply because someone considers the image pornographic: the same has been said of Mapplethorpe, but surely we'd take any image of his that his heirs would license appropriately. Again, I have no idea how notable this artist is, but artist's notability is a factor. A Malevich black square is not interchangeable with one I might cut out of construction paper. - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete I have to agree with delete, work of a known artist or not, the image is of poor quality, out of focus and poor composition. Theres bound to be PLENTY of other similar images available of higher quality then this one. Raeky (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep A work by a notable artist, and the subject is unidentifiable. Prolog (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Merely being "a work by a notable artist" does not automatically give a work educational value, at least not if we use "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. (As we'd say on Wikipedia, "notability is not inherited".) There may be some artists whose every single work is notable enough to have educational use, but I'm not convinced Peter Klashorst is one of them. In any case, from what I can see, this file does not seem to be legitimately in use. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I would have to agree, people use notable with this guy, but quite frankly my definition of "notable" must be much different then everyone else's here. Hes been mentioned in maybe a handful of news articles that all appear to be local, a scant amount of web reverences. I'd at least think Notable as being someone who's been in newspapers at least globally, international gallery shows, something. What exactly makes him notable? And how does the BULK of his images people keep keeping here have educational value? For me this has nothing to do with nudity, but Commons should only archive stuff that has historic or educational value (which I think is what is "in scope") theres plenty of websites you can upload images too (he has flickr) that has no restrictions. Forget about the nudity and look at it from notability and educational value point of view. Raeky (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Kept. work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)