Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gaming (nude).jpg

This deletion debate 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:Gaming_(nude).jpg

I think this image is out of the project's scope. ALE! ¿…? 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete Though nudity is no reason to exclude a picture, this photo has nothing making it potentially useful. --Simonxag 02:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep I don't see any problem with that picture. For instance it can illustrate the fact that some people like to be nude at home. This picture is not pornographic. Commons should also accept some artistic pictures. This shot is no more useless than many paintings available on the site. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Should we deleted that as well? Or that? Come on! Nude pictures, as long as they're not pornographic, can have an artistic + informative/educational value. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete paintings cannot be compared with this picture on a "usefulness" criteria; I mean that paintings images hosted on Commons have an educational value, and represent artworks that belong to the World patrimony. Paintings are exhibited in museums, have celebrity and are commented by art specialists, this picture hasn't/isn't (as far as I know). Agelou14.jpg is artwork, and Aktfoto-4.jpg may be not (and then should probably get a RfD)... -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 11:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep It´s the only "gaming nude pic" in the whole Category:Video game players. So it has a "Alleinstellungsmerkmal" as the German wikipedians say. (Sorry, can´t translate this. Maybe another German can). Mutter Erde 12:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Try the German wiktionary here. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete like Simonxag, or please upload all Flickr on Commons. ~ bayo or talk 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  Oh come on! This is hyprocrisy! Let's say the contrary (it will be as stupid as your "argument"): do not upload anything from Flickr here since it's available there! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep --Econt 20:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote. --ALE! ¿…? 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    What do you mean this is not a vote? Even if it isn't they can say they'd like the picture to be kept, can't they? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? This is my opinion and my vote.--Econt 10:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep Elektron 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote. --ALE! ¿…? 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Why? I mean if I am for sth I have rigth to support it without declaring my intension. Am I rigth? I like this picture and I think it will be useful to describe some topics (e.g: act, sex, body, etc.) Elektron 07:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete per Simonxag, AlNo & bayo. We don't need to mirror all CC Flickr images. guillom 15:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  We don't need to delete all CC Flickr images neither so that's not an argument of deletion because in that case why this one and not the others in the same case? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete Out of project scope, and if we get some erotic/porn pictures then a minimum picture quality should be asked for. le Korrigan →bla 08:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  Sorry but I can't help thinking that such a narrow conception of beauty is sad (even pathetic maybe...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  Such comments could get you blocked. guillom 09:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  I am already blocked (on my demand) and I have the full right to give my opinion on an argument I feel ridiculous. I don't judge the person, I judge the argument. --86.67.47.175 12:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  No, « such a narrow conception of beauty is sad (even pathetic maybe...) » is definitely not an opinion on an argument, but on one's « conception of beauty » that you judge « narrow » and « pathetic ». And being blocked doesn't prevent your IP from being blocked too. guillom 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  Well I'm sorry then but it honeslty wasn't my purpose. I just think it's sad but I wasn't thinking about that person in particular nor a group of persons. Thinking such a thing is sad is IMO like any politician criticizing a decision of the opposition: the critic will be towards the idea/decision, not the persons (but I know it'd be considered as such). As for the risk of seeing my IP blocked, I'll be frank: this can't be a threat for me since it'd actually help me! --86.67.47.175 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep I think that some of those pictures are influence by the Gaoguin style.My personal opinion is that,for the moment,this picture have not problem.The problem always will be on the kind of mind and soul of every person that will see the picture,thanks.

  PD:I don't see what kind of box she have between the legs.Meaby could be much better if the box can result a little bit more big.Thank you. ([[User talk:Vicond

  I suppose you meant Gauguin? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  Oh yes,sorry.The post-impressionist painter contemporary with Vincent van Gogh.If you want more specifically (on this case),the pictures of the natives of the Tahiti Island.Thanks ([[User talk:Vicond

•  Delete As this is a private place and there is a normal expectation of privacy, the subject's permission should be obtained per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Since no permission is given, this should be deleted. --MichaelMaggs 22:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And could you tell me why this one and not the rest of the nudes? I'm sure 90% of the nudes don't have any authorization. What's more, the photographer is apparently a quite famous artist in Netherlands (he's got an article on WP nl) so I guess such an artist doesn't post pictures in Flickr without models' authorizations! BTW why don't you contact him instead of assuming there's no authorization? --86.67.47.175 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

 Comment. Many nudes aren't identifiable, so the issue doesn't arise. Where it does, and the photo is taken in a private place, the model's permission should be obtained and registered with OTRS. I've no doubt there are other images on Commons that ought to have permission but don't; however, you should not be relying on mistakes elsewhere to argue for a mistake to be made here as well. What's the point of having these guidelines if they are going to be ignored in such an obvious case? --MichaelMaggs 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit you're right. But why didn't you answer to my last question? If you think the absence of authorization is the only (or main) reason of deletion, it would be more logical to start with a contact with the author in order to have this authorization. --86.67.47.175 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That has been done, and no permission has been provided. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Delete These pseudo-arguements, which try to define a very thin line from Gauguin to these photgraphs made by someone, who finds his (cheap) models in Thailand, are very scary. The photo itself is hopelessly useless. --Herrick 13:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh! sorry for my pseudo-arguements,but,you could explain me ,what's the utility of an image into a category named "Nude women" on wikimedia commons? Thanks. ([[User talk:Vicond

@Herrick: would you mean nude pictures are encyclopedicly useless? If the answer is yes, I'm sorry but I'd say you're pathetic. If the answer is no, then there's no point deleting that one and not others (aesthetic arguments can't be accepted because they are subjective, therefore contrary to neutrality on Commons) --86.67.47.175 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So..... Yourself has said it. for you (and commons I suppost)what means "utility" on this case?Why this image don't have utility and has to be erased?([[User talk:Vicond

???? --86.67.47.175 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

@Vicond: It's one thing to illustrate the aura of erotique or the beautiful body of a man or a woman. I don't have any problems with good photos (in german: Aktfotografie; nude photography) like that. Helmut Newton's photos wouldn't harm anyone ;-) But's another question how you would describe this (Gaming (nude).jpg) picture? It's not a documentary photo. Maybe the photographer took it while the model takes a break. But would it useful to illustrate his working, her break, the MP3-Player, a game console? Not a all. There's nothing of aesthetic elements and quality in this picture. The only reason for uploading images like that could be to illustrate the minor work of this artist. And by the way: A look on your Contributions illustrates that your account refers only to on thing: discussions ;-) --Herrick 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is arrogant to say there's nothing of aesthetic elements. This is completely subjective since I personnally find it aesthetic (and the bad light anb noise make it great IMO). As for the "documentary" potential, I think it has been said above: some people like to be nude at home and do stuff that most people do dressed. Therefore I think this picture can illustrate those kind of life ways. And as you said it illustrate the work of this artist (again this is arrogant to say "minor work". Wikimedia is neutral, it doesn't have to judge what's great or not in an artist's work). Finally, your personal attack towards Vicond is useless and gratuitous and nonsense. He's free to discuss only if he wants it like that! --86.67.47.175 07:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. You call me arrogant and think that it would be a personal attack against a discussion troll or sockpuppet? Your're kidding. --Herrick 08:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately not kidding. It'd be great if you could discuss and think before assuming things. I'm neither a troll nor a sockpuppet. Be informed before attacking. Thanks. --86.67.47.175 08:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vicond - not you >-( --Herrick 08:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah OK... Except that's me who called you arrogant, not Vicond ;-) (this discussion is becoming really ridiculous!) --86.67.47.175 08:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all the customers of your personal crusade for Peter Klashorst. Some of his photos are good and useful, but this refers me to my very last statement on Village pump. --Herrick 09:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete, not meaningful. --Minghong 18:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is your "argument" meaningful? What does "meaningful" mean to you? --86.67.47.175 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment The author of the photography is apparently a quite famous Dutch artist called Peter Klashorst. Therefore, the potential of this picture is also to illustrate his work. I hope some people will understand that! --86.67.47.175 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So,you have any objetions with this?It's a valid argumment to delete the picture? Or meaby it's a valid argumment:"someone, who finds his (cheap) models in Thailand"???? ([[User talk:Vicond PD:I'm not sure what is your position now. keep or delete? Is only a nude of an Asian girl in a peaceful attitude "Gaming" It's not the most "agresive nude of wiki".Wiki have others nudes that are most explicit and they have not problem. What's the problem with this one in particular?

Do you know why you're confused? Because you're mixing my arguments (IP 86.67.47.175 or TwoWings) and Herrick's. When I wrote "@Herrick" it meant I was speaking/answering Herrick. --86.67.47.175 06:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I can see.No problem.Thanks for your defense. ([[User talk:Vicond

By the way, why do you sign like that - and under IP? (although I suppose I'm not the good person to ask that!) --86.67.47.175 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep No reason to delete. "Wikimedia Commons is a freely licensed media file repository (similar to stock photography archives) targeted at other Wikimedia projects.". Also, please keep in mind that Commons is used to feed Wikimedia projects, not only Wikipedia. I can easily imagine how these images could be used on the photography wikibook. Rama 09:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep No reason to delete. --Marcela 14:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Keep but rename. Rama's comment sums it up. The price of the models have no bearing as a deletion rationale whatsoever. Just though I'd like to clarify that, we aren't going to delete images from poorer countries for that reason alone. A concept as controversial as ethics cannot have any real bearing in a deletion discussion. We of course do not accept any random nude image. This does not seem to be a random nude image given the artist (hence in project scope). If notable artists agree to release their art (nude or not) with a free license, all of it can be uploaded to commons. This is the very point why commons exist. We can mirror useful free images such as this one from flickr or LOC. Hard drives are cheep and deleting it won't win us any hard drive space.

In a nutshell I see no valid reason for a delete.

-- Cat ^ちぃ？ 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate 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:Gaming_(nude).jpg

This is another Peter Klashorst image which is of a possibly underage model with no evidence of permission or proof of age. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please see the above request from November, it's time to revisit it in light of changes in our understanding. ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Delete The closure last time went against established policy per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. The publication without consent of photographs of identifiable nudes in a private setting is particularly intrusive and damaging to the subject, and we should insist on proper OTRS permission in every such case. Here, there is also the very real possibility that she may be under age, but regardless of her age the photograph clearly has to go. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep I think, renaming is not necessary Mutter Erde (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep “informative/educational value” as TwoWings said and within the Project's scope. --Mattes (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify what educational value the image has? As of right now, the image is used nowhere except in a gallery of Peter K's work on fr:wikibooks. Please suggest an article or appropriate non gallery usage to justify this claim. To me this is out of scope. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Delete The subject is identifiable and the photo was taken in a private place. Permission from the subject is needed. From COM:PEOPLE: "Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named." Pruneau (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Delete Commons is not censored & I am happy about that. I think we should be looking for real confirmation of release by the model. In the absence of that deletion is the only option, Pruneau put it well. I think for any such material where there may be questions there should be explicit OTRS permission at the very least --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep These are images by a notable photographer, they don't appear to be pornographic (so age would not matter) and at this point we have no indication personality rights may have been violated. Honestly I don't like his work, but this is not about like or dislike.--Caranorn (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems I forgot to strike my vote here, for various reasons explained I other related topics I no longer feel confident with voting at this time, be it Keep or Delete.--Caranorn (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For a project that takes licensing so seriously I find it incredible that some people are so unconcerned about the validity of that licensing. For such quasi pornographic images I think it is incumbent on us to establish to the best of our ability that the model gives consent & is an adult. The photographer has failed to give that information --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Delete unless model release and age confirmation will obtained. And I don't see anything educational on this photo. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep again there's NO reason to believe she's underage (at least no more reason than any other nude picture on Commons). And there's no reason to think it's a private picture (therefore no need of consent). Private place doesn't mean private situation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So your argument is that a bedroom is not a private place? Or are you arguing that a private place becomes a public one when a photographer is present? Makes it difficult, then, to think of any place that you would accept as private. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No. I mean that "private place" doesn't really mean anything. A photographer working in his own flat wouldn't mean it's a private place. Haven't you ever seen a photo of a model in a bed? Would that mean it's a private place? No. So there's a big problem about that "private place" criteria. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Delete Unfortunately, someone has decided to split the Klashorst deletion requests into several, separate deletion requests, which means the discussion has ended up all over the place. I think all the arguments in favour of deletion have been done to the death. Policy requires deletion. I will, however, copy-paste this refutation of every possible argument for keeping these (for all those reading this for the sixth time, sorry to spam every DR with the same crap, but that's pretty much what the keepers are doing, and doing this saves me time over refuting each argument individually). Enjoy the copypasta:
  1. Peter Klashorst is a prolific publisher of nude photos: So was R@ygold and the swirl face guy, and we're not about to start hosting their picture collection. That someone has a huge collection of such pictures on his Flickr account means nothing at all. This would only be valid in the case of, say, the Suicide Girls -- a business that we can count upon to get the requisite documentation before publishing (and as a side-note, hire photographers with talent, as well, something Klashorst should consider).
  2. Peter Klashorst is an artist: He's a painter, and possibly one that nobody would give a damn about if he hadn't got arrested for some rather unsavoury activity in Senegal some time ago. However good he is at painting, he is an amateur photographer. Or to put it less delicately, he's a not-quite-half-talented hack and it shows; even if he had an Uzi to his head I doubt that he'd be able to take a photo that wouldn't go down in flames at FPC like a skyscraper in New York (inb4 "so can you do better?" -- I don't have to be an expert on trains to tell you that a skateboard is not a train). He is certainly not an artistic or professional photographer. As such, we should apply the same standards to Klashorst as we would with anyone.
  3. His pictures are of posed artists: Bullshit. We know exactly where he finds the girls he photographs (it's not like his penchant for prostitutes is a secret, guys). And this is, again, made less likely by the fact that the kind of people that rent studio models can, at the least, take a half-decent picture if their life depended on it. So again, feel free to compare Klashorst's works to some of our Suicide Girls, for example: the difference between Klashorst and a professional studio photographer is roughly the difference between the paper airplane I just folded and a B-52 Stratofortress.
  4. These are not pornographic, so the age issue is irrelevant: An interesting position to take; try calling the party van and telling them that you have some nude pictures of under-age girls on your computer. Your end will be playing "mommies and daddies" in the prison showers with a fat, hairy fellow convict. Admit it: if these photos had any technical merit, they'd be soft-core porn. But we could even grant this premise and we'd still have the issue that there is no evidence that the models have given their consent for more-or-less unlimited publication of these pictures, so we don't even need to make this argument.
  5. Commons is not censored: Well, yes it is actually. We don't host child pornography on Commons, for example. We also don't host copyright violations. We are as uncensored as we can be within our legal (and moral) obligations. This is not an argument in itself; it is hand-waving to try and distract people from the real issues at hand.
  6. The related argument of This is a (possibly Senegalian Muslim) crusade to get rid of nudes from Commons: No, it's not. I am not a prude, nor do I really care to get rid of every nude from Commons. What I do care about is that we live up to our legal (and moral) obligations as codified in our policy on identifiable photographs of living people. Every one of these Klashorst photos fails our obligations on this count, and I'm damned if we should make an exception for Klashorst "becuz he's famous lol".

Thank you for your time. Can we start deleting yet? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Delete Please see my comments on the Image:Fuck_you!_(nude).jpg deletion request. Brynn_(talk) 04:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Delete, per Lars comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Young black nude-2.jpg, no permission of the model, delete, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 18:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Delete, No model permission, no model release, no evidence of age of majority, no real usefulness for image. Bastique ^demandez 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Deleted. --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:27, 21 June 2008 (GMT)