Commons:Deletion requests/File:Akt-landschaft-2007-02.jpg
First of all, it is a nude person. That would be okay if it weren't a bad shot, and if this didn't seem like someone just tried to take a bad naked photo of themselves in a car. No articles use it, and it has no educational value. RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your words can be seen how much you know of nude photography. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- According to german law and law of many other countries this picture is without any doubt not pornographic. It's an nude in artistic meaning, of good photographic quality. There is only one breast belonging to female sexual characteristics to see, accurately seen of female secondary sexual characteristics. My opinion: Not to delete! --Alupus (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep Simply nude photography. No reason to delete. --Leyo 20:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus. --ZooFari 00:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
92.246.34.60 18:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy
- Speedy
Kept – No delete reason given, kept by unanimous decision! a×pdeHello! 15:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: Personally I'm strictly against keeping tons of pornographic pictures, but even if this picture might offend some puritan readers it is definetly no pornography! a×pdeHello! 15:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand this has gone through a deletion debate, but it is an unused and unuseful image. I don't know what it would illustrate, but we have other images in Category:Nude women inside automobiles, and they don't cut off the subject's head. There's no artistry or technical skill in the image, and I'm seeing little value besides "hey here's a naked woman". Prosfilaes (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- As a general principle, I think we should look a little askance at nudes that don't have heads that aren't anatomical illustrations. They're more purient, more amateur, and they indicate that the model wasn't really comfortable with the photography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, there was; there's no educational use, therefore it's out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Commons no only the source for Wikimedia projects, Commons is a source of fee images. It's no out of scope. --Ralf Roleček 20:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, there was; there's no educational use, therefore it's out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Talk page use generally doesn't count. This is not censorship; this is in accordance with COM:PENIS which says "(But this is in no way restricted to files containing nudity or sexual content; anything of poor quality may be deleted in favor of higher-quality replacements.)"--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Per cmts. Alan (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image, we have better images of nude women driving. Only use is buried in an old archive page on German Wikipedia Dronebogus (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- That’s not a rationale, unless you can point me to a “lots of deletion requests = immunity” policy. And two years-old requests (not counting an invalid one with no rationale) are not “several”. Dronebogus (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment – It is amateur porn and fun to see how people do not provide any reasons for why it would be "realistically educationally useful".
- I'm fine with a totally unrealistic view of what belongs on WMC – my concern is that it is inappropriately placed into category "Unidentified Volkswagen automobiles" where it does not belong. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment If you have a concern about categorization which you consider inappropriate, you can edit to improve categorization. That is not a reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- If "we have better pictures" were an argument (it isn't), it wouldn't apply. It is the only image in its category that was taken from the top view. Commons is a database of images, from which re-users can choose and use the image that suits them best (in WM, instantcommons, or anywhere else on the web). It is censoring to try to dictate to the re-users what they should use. C.Suthorn (@[email protected] - p7.ee/p) (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- We aren’t an indiscriminate collection of everything. Quality control isn’t censorship. Dronebogus (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrogmation. --Rosenzweig τ 08:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)