Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless young woman.jpg

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

[edit]

Outside of project scope. Commons has plenty of other images which depict breasts, leaving this one to be unused. I would also say the subjects age is questionable. Tiptoety talk 17:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment - I will also note COM:NUDE which states "The Commons is not for exercising voyeuristic or exhibitionistic urges". After looking at the uploaders flickr page which states "I just like showing off my body hope you all enjoy." I would argue the file also fails COM:NUDE. Tiptoety talk 17:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I am inclined to agree with "out of scope" but not so much it is speedy. --Herby talk thyme 17:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - Per COM:PORN and COM:NUDE. Hluup (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep in scope and model's age is not really questionable. "Real" women can have small boobs. -Nard the Bard 17:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Age is no problem for this image. Why nominate this one, out of all the other images from Flickr-pro account "Brittany Suza" that were transferred to Commons? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Just noting that, equivalent picture with male subject would probably deleted almost instantaneously. Hluup (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - I'm inclined to say no age problems, since it appears from the flickr page that she's 20, but I do wonder whether we really need this image. It's unused... But then I'm all for a mass pruning of images, and this doesn't seem an especially good one. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I don't see the educational value. Unused private image; out of scope. (The fact that she is topless does not change that) --Jahobr (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As Nard the Bard. Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep May illustrate of exhibitionism for instance. So it's in the scope. And she's apparently 21. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 23:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I do not think this image can be used realistically for educational purposes. --High Contrast (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Come on you guys, get real, it doesn't matter how old she is, she looks under age, nobody will look up and see if she's 21, she looks young and the image looks porno. Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment If we believe her Flickr profile (and I see no reason why we wouldn't believe her), she is 21. And nudity is not porn (at least no such a topless picture !). It might be eroticism but not porn (there's a big nuance). Another thing : nudity is part of life, it's a subject of knowledge as any other subject, so why couldn't we illustrate this topic ? I rarely understand why so many DR are connected to nudity... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel there is a major issue with age here however I still am not at all convinced about whether the image is within scope. No one so far has come up with a good suggestion of where it would really be used. --Herby talk thyme 12:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you see that's where I don't understand the issue : for some reason, no-one cares that most of the pictures of the Eiffel Tower are unused. But for some reason, even if there is a Wikipedia article about nudity, we apparently have to use all nude pictures or they're considered out of scope ! Can you or someone else explain this differnce ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think most people would consider the Eiffel Tower of far more geographical, architectural, cultural, historical significance than another not very good image of another topless woman? Certainly there is a vast difference to me. --Herby talk thyme 14:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I know there are very different topics. But I see no reason to treat them differently when it comes to the diversity of files proposed on Commons. I actually don't really understand why the presence of some files (and this one particularly) is considered as bothersome... Does it really make a difference (for those who want those kind of files deleted) that it's kept or deleted ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are various reasons that nudity is treated differently than images of historic landmarks. The biggest one being that nude images are regulated in large part of the world. And there are other ethical consideration related to nude images and sexually explicit content. Responsible organizations address these issues in order to be good corporate citizens. We have more work to do in this area not less as WMF has grown to be one of the most well known and used internet sites in the world, and greater attention is being drawn to our websites. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. But if I follow your reflection, all nude or sexually explicit contents should be deleted on Commons. But it's not the case. And we're back to the first question : why should we accept to keep some and refuse other nude pictures ? I still see no logical reason to make such a subjective choice against diversity, and that just because it's nudity ! So if you're right, let's delete all nudity from Commons... or let's go back to first question ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, nude and sexually explicit content needs to managed more carefully because of the potential problems that careless hosting could cause to the WMF, to the person in the image, readers, people that reuse it. This is not a novel idea. It is recognized by many websites that host images that special features and processes are needed to manage this type of content. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I can understand that. But now, tell me why this particular picture should be deleted. This is not porn but eroticisme (nuance) and she's not even underage (see above). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC
    I gave my reason in my comment below but I will expand it here. Accumulating a large collection of amateur porn or exhibitionist-type images would take WMF away from it core mission. I think that it is important for volunteer editors to step back and think big picture about the way each individual decision will effect the overall mission of WMF. Up to this point, Commons has regularly (albeit slowly) removed sexually explicit and sexually titillating images that are redundant to stop Commons from becoming something different than its original intended purpose. This particular image does not bring anything meaningful to Commons and WMF projects. It is so easy to reproduce that I can not imagine that someone would need to look to Commons to obtain it so we are not missing something of educational significance. I give a more complete answer below. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Out of scope. Not any reason to accumulate an unlimited amount of amateur porn or feed exhibitionists by displaying every upload of this type. And I think that we need to follow the spirit of U.S. law as good corporate citizens which means that we self patrol and remove erotic and porn images of people that could reasonable seen to be minors. Up to this point, the law has been enforced to stop producers of porn and images as seen under obscenity laws. If we stay on the right side of the spirit of the law then I believe that we will continue to be supported by the global community and outside interests will not make us a target. But if we blatantly thumb our nose at the law, then I think it is quite possible that we will not get the broad support that we need to accomplish our mission. So we need to do a good job self patrolling as volunteers users. As well, I think that it is ethically appropriate to follow the spirit of this law since the idea behind it is to stop abuse of children. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment OK let's say we have to select nude pictures we have to keep and those we have to delete. But if we do so, let me remind you that one of Wikimedia's main rules is neutrality. So we would need to find a coherent/neutral way to choose which pictures we delete and which ones we keep (or it's really not neutral). I actually have quite a proof of this lack of neutrality when it comes to choose between nude pictures. It seems that File:Topless_young_woman.jpg will be deleted while the quality of it is not that bad (not great of course, but not so crap after all) and while there's really no objective reason not to keep it. On the other hand File:Nudist Photo- Martin Hale-Hoffman Naked in Paradise 125.jpg has been kept after a DR I launched myself. That mentioned, as an argument, the fact that it was used, although the quality is very very bad (far worse than the picture discussed here). This is hypocrit to me because we all know that it can be replaced by far better pictures on the pages where it's used. Would everyone have a different POV about the picture discussed here if it was used on an article about breasts, or nudity, or exhibitionisme? So here we are : we're so incoherent that we keep very low quality pictures even if they can be replaced by better pictures, and we want to delete pictures that could be used, that have not so bad quality and that is no bothersome at all for Commons. Is that really how you think Commons can be considered as serious ? By making such a random choice of deletion ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this picture is hardly pornographie, the girl seems rather young to me. And from the artistic point of view this picture is of rather poor quality and neither art nor educational ... so  Delete axpdeHello! 16:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep --Matthiasb (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, it's neither censonship nor discrimination and definitely no paranoia. It's simply that noone explained why exactly this picture is so desperatly needed and what's its outstanding educational value! axpdeHello! 09:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So do you mean that commons should not have pictures of woman with small breasts and a young looking face? That's clearly censorship, isn't it? --Saibo (Δ) 11:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO commons should only show pictures of truly educational purpose. If you to describe the anatomy of a young looking girl with small breasts, there are more suitable pictures on commons. This one looks rather tantalizingly ... axpdeHello! 17:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The reader of an article gets a better understanding of the subject if there isn't just one image as example. If there are more images (not necessarily in the article, also possible with a web link to a commons category) he can compare the several images and abstract the important key elements. What if someone wants to write an article (section) about exhibitionism by a group of persons with a specific kind of body characteristic? --Saibo (Δ) 18:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It took me just three clicks <edit>here on commons</edit>to get a collection of more suitable pictures showing naked young women but looking less tantalizingly! Your argument "what if ..." is invalid, what if someone wants to write an article about most effective killing methods, do you want commons to store pictures of a "murderer at work"? axpdeHello! 18:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't care that it's easy to find other pictures on the web : Commons has one purpose : offering choice of illustrations for anybody who'd like to work on any subjects. When you apply "commonscat" or such templates on a Wikipedia article, it tells the reader that s/he can find other illustrations on the same subject : how useful would it be if s/he only finds the exact same pictures that are used on the article and no more diversity ?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not speaking about the whole web, I found a dozen more suitable pictures here on commons! There's already enough diversity available. And that's why I'm truly convinced we don't need this praticular picture!
    But just to note you deliberately concealed my question on the article about most effective killing methods. It's educational so it's in scope, but I guess we unfortunaly don't have enough pictures to illustrate those ... axpdeHello! 09:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. While there is division about this image, the fact that the flickr account has been discontinued very recently pushes me to err on the side of caution, especially in light of the increased exposure of the current controversy. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Topless_young_woman.jpg&oldid=696761707"