Commons:Deletion requests/Images of User:Expert19612005

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Images of Expert19612005[edit]

“The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep all pornographic images (see also Censorship COM:PS#Censorship)” Besides: Commons:Photographs of identifiable people ([1]) Otourly (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Per Otourly. Diti the penguin — 11:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Complex question, which might require that we split this request into individual requests for each file:
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete for some images, for instance File:Prince Albert Piercings(expert19612005)..JPG, as we already have images of a Prince Albert piercing that are of a better quality (though this particular case features a particularly large stretch, possibly a 00-gauge, which we do not seem to have, so it might remain debatable).
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep for some images at least. For instance, documenting saline solution injections as a sexual practice is a legitimate endeavour, well distinct from the "theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography" case. Of course, we do not need all of them, but some might deserve keeping.
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete depending on the applicable US law: we might be required to have the names of proofs of identities of the subjects of the photographs -- see the Bmezine server migration to Canada. Note that this law might also apply to photographs from Abu Ghraib and from Guantanamo, what a wonderful world. Rama (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep all the pictures where the subject is not identifiable. These images are unusual and useful to document aspects of human sexuality: the fact that some may find them either pornographic or erotic is irrelevant. The only reason we get rid of penis pictures is that we have plenty and are bombarded with more low quality examples. The Commons is not censored. --Simonxag (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Strong keep, per Simonxag. Some of these images illustrate less common forms of human sexuality. Delete the others. –blurpeace (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Strong keep, as above; commons is not censored, the images cover topics where we do not have much material, if any, & the fact that the anatomy shots are all(/mostly?) of the same subject-person makes them more useful for some applications; it gives better definition of the subject as anatomy. also, the rationales given for deletion are weak. "photos of identifiable people" is invalid, the images are self-authored. "required to have proof of identity/age" is questionable at best; the subject appears to be an adult male, laughable, the images are of an obviously adult (apparently young-middle aged) male, no reasons have been presented to suggest otherwise, & in this case suggesting that the subject might be a minor is absurd. also agreed that this should not be handled as a "bulk-request", the images can't be fairly grouped together for a mass-deletion nomination on any grounds other than: "they're all dirty pictures, all by the same BAD person!", which again violates "not censored", as well as "agf" Lx 121 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • btw: why don't people sign their comments? isn't that supposed to be part of the openness & transparency of the process on a wikiproject; as well as a basic courtesy? Lx 121 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I deleted some of his uploads on the uploaders request. He was identifiable on these photos, I guess this is the reason for his request. --Polarlys (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Close. Many of these have already been deleted, either by Polarlys as stated above or as the result of other DRs. 3 of the remaining 5 images currently have their own DRs open. The other two (File:Prince Albert Piercings(expert19612005)..JPG & File:Prince Albert Piercings(expert19612005).JPG) are being kept. Rocket000 (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_User:Expert19612005&oldid=39998851"