Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mons pubis.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:Mons_pubis.jpg

First DR for this image: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mons pubis.jpg

mons pubis 188.51.126.54 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nearly vandalism - commons are uncensored Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why yes, yes it is a mons pubis. A very beautiful one at that. -Nard the Bard 23:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming good faith, Commons, like most wikis, is uncensored. ZooFari 05:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flickrwashing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per being in scope (image is in use in multiple Wikimedia projects to depict the anatomical detail shown in the photo) and previous deletion nomination closed as kept 2 years ago. Of course this keep vote does not apply if image is a copyright violation -- Pieter Kuiper, what is the evidence this is Flickrwashing? -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no exif, 54 kb. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Great picture IMO but Pieter Kuiper seems to be right. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Taking other examples from that flickr accounts 4 nude pictures (of 8 total uploads) and sending them through TinEye ([1] see [2]) I agree with Pieter, the 4 nude images from that flickr account are not created by the flickr user. Maybe the other 4 non-nude pictures are created by them, but they are not freely licensed, so dont care. However, it is not flickr washing but a "Flickrvio", see Template:Flickrvionote. --Martin H. (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, I'm convinced. NOTE: There are also two derivitive images File:Mons pubis cropped .jpg and File:Mons pubis 2.jpg; if this needs to be deleted as a copyviol so do the other two. Not counting use in a couple of user pages, these three images are between them illustraing articles in 12 different Wikipedias! I suggest replacement images be put in the relevent articles before deletion. Alas, I'm not sure that we have another image nearly as good an illustration of Mons pubis; the closest I see are File:Clit Hood Piercing.jpg (which unfortunately for the purpose has a districting bit of piercing jewellery) and File:Mons venus.jpg (perhaps the best choice, though not as good a photo and in black and white). (BTW, I think this disproves the too often heard argument that Commons has "too many" genitalia images-- we may have lots of random snapshots of genitalia, but we can certainly use more images that are high quality well photographed and anatomically illustrative.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd say File:Mons venus.jpg is excellent to illustrate the subject ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as for Pieter. @Infrogmation: you are right, we do not have many good, illustrative, educational, high quality images of genitals etc., but this must not be a motivation to import images from dubious sources. I believe more than 50% of our flickr imports are doubtful, very many of them are from flickr accounts wich are no longer present, or from accounts wich use cc-templates with clearly copyrighted material. But it is not in any case easy to prove the copyvio with every single image. We should not use any photos from flickr accounts that have been caught using ONE copyvio. Those acconts should not have any credit now and in future. -- smial (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on Nelly. The tineye hits are all for SMALLER images. It is also interesting this is the ONLY image from that flickr user that is not all rights reserved, suggesting somebody from the Commons community has spoken to him before. Let's see if we can ascertain where the photo came from. -Nard the Bard 22:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted including its derivatives as this seems to be indeed a case of flickr-washing. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]