Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Two little girls.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.

Image:Two little girls.jpg

An identifiable portrait of minors which prominently shows a little girl's underwear. I have many of the same questions which I had for user Belginusanl's images (and all his photographs were of fully-clothed girls) -- such as: did the photographer get appropriate legal permissions from the parents or guardians of the girls to release the photo under a free license? Can the original uploader validly legally document that he got the appropriate permissions from the parent or legal guardian? Does the photographer have a signed model release? Does this photograph violate the "rights of personality" (i.e. privacy) which exist in the laws of some countries? Are there potential legal problems caused by posting a photograph of identifiable minors? Are there potential ethical problems caused by posting a photograph of children who are too young to make an informed decision to consent to the public posting of their photograph? Most importantly, do we want this photograph on Wikimedia Commons?

The only thing which the uploader has said is that it's a nice picture of modern dresses, but there are infinite possible photographs of modern clothing styles which would not have the cloud of potential problems which this pic has. As I said with respect to Belginusanl's images, "Minimal educational or informational value plus maximal potential problems equals delete, by my calculations."

P.S. It would have been nice if Wikimedia Commons administrator "kjetil" had been able to play a positive role in the discussions which led up to this deletion nomination, rather than refusing to address any of the issues I raised about this image, and instead merely launching irrelevant personal attacks against me, interspersed with irrelevant declarations of the alleged superiority of European culture to inferior Americanism. -- AnonMoos 16:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, please stop these personal attacks. Kjetil _r 17:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that you played a completely negative and unproductive role in the discussion at User_talk:Ranveig, launching personal attacks against me in an apparent attempt to intimidate me from carrying out this deletion nomination, is not a "personal attack". AnonMoos 17:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not launch personal attacks against Mr. AnonMoos. Kjetil

Yes you did -- you attempted to taunt me on the basis of my nationality at "00:42, 12 February 2007", and you insinuated that I was a sexual pervert who has "serious personal problems" on 04:46, 17 February 2007. If that isn't a personal attack, then I don't know what is! AnonMoos 18:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But claiming that I have a “thesis about the superiority of the European way of life to degenerate inferior Americanism” is clearly a personal attack (and so far out that it almost is funny). He is also repeatedly putting my name in quotation marks. I guess that is his subtle way of attacking me. These personal attacks are clearly unacceptable. Kjetil

Summarizing the intent of remarks which you chose to make is not a "personal attack". If you didn't want me to say that you made "irrelevant declarations of the alleged superiority of European culture to inferior Americanism", then you shouldn't have made irrelevant declarations of the alleged superiority of European culture to inferior Americanism. AnonMoos 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. AnonMoos seems to believe that this photo of two girls playing is a “upskirt shot of preteen girls” (see User_talk:Ranveig#Image:Two_little_girls.jpg). He needs to assume good faith, as he has implicitly accused Mrs. Ranveig ~~by saying that she “naturally attracts suspicion to himself/herself”.~~

I can not really see why this image needs to be deleted. What is the difference between this image and all the images in Category:Girls? We should not delete a photo just because Mr. AnonMoos thinks of sex when he sees it. Kjetil _r 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're really lowering yourself by out-and-out lying, "kjetil", since I clearly and unequivocally said on User_talk:Ranveig, I didn't say that "Ranveig naturally attracts suspicion to himself/herself", I said "it[the photograph] naturally attracts suspicion to itself", because that's what I meant. (comment of 07:13, 12 February 2007). I really don't understand how out-and-out lying serves you in this case, when everybody can easily see your lie by visiting User_talk:Ranveig. AnonMoos 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I misunderstood. Kjetil _r 18:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A funny kind of "misunderstanding" when you had to have that comment directly in front of you to be able to cut-and-paste from it... AnonMoos 18:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I have said that I am sorry, what more do you expect? Kjetil _r 18:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little too late to tell me to "assume Good Faith" when you have managed to convince me by your numerous unconstructive and inappropriate actions over the past week that you are acting in bad faith. I "assumed Good Faith" until that was no longer possible without deliberately closing my eyes. AnonMoos 18:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am unable to see the problem regarding this photograph. --|EPO| 17:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As EPO said, unable to see the problem. --Jóna Þórunn 18:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A nice picture, this is hysteria. Btd 18:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why do you want to delete this picture? It is normal to see the underwear under a skirt, when the person seats. --217.224.104.63 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with commons and its deletion requests, but I got to know about this discussion though an IRC-conversation with Kjetil_r, and I can understand that some people could find it troubeling to look at pictures like that, and I made a cropped version. Now it looks like the image would be kept, but this could be considered an alternative to a deletion. -- Atluxity 18:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is IRC where "kjetil" recruited a Scandinavian contingent to dump on my image deletion nomination? AnonMoos 18:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he mentioned the discussion about this image yesterday in relations to the difference oppinions norwegians and americans have on sexuality. Today he just mentioned to the people that was in that discussion yesterday that the image now was on a deletion request. I would hardly call that recruiting, but I can understand that it seems organized. As far as I know, it is not. -- Atluxity 18:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not really about "sexuality" as such (though "kjetil" keeps trying to insist it is) -- it's about an image which has potential to create problems of various kinds for the Wikimedia Commons project. The panties aren't necessarily particularly "sexual" in and of themselves, but the result of their presence in the image is to throw into sharp pointed focus certain potential problems which exist certain types of images on Wikimedia Commons. AnonMoos 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you use the expression “upskirt shot of preteen girls”? Kjetil _r 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's possibly the expression that law-enforcement personnel and/or someone with a prurient interest in such photographs might have used. It was a short-hand way of indicating the scope of the potential problem in a brief unambiguous phrase (though the main issue is actually the potential difficulties the photo might cause for the Wikimedia Commons project, not the degree of sexuality present in the photo, as I've said before). By the way, you're contextually slightly misquoting me when you place my original indefinite plural comment into a definite plural context (thank you for not doing it this time)... 19:22, AnonMoos 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Nice image, nothing to do with sex. But when is this image useful? AnonMoos: Stop the personal attacks. Norwegian Marcu s 18:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice photo. To AnonMoos: no personal attacks, please. Yann 19:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice picture. Pornography paranoia considered harmful. -- Drini 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful, not used, not created by a wikimedia. For whatever uses you could think of for this, we already have many other images. We're not a flickr mirror. Lets become perfect for useful works before we expanding into materials which are not useful. --Gmaxwell 21:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many pictures in Wikipedia are not very useful and are not used in articles. But this is no reason for delete this one. Please keep it. --217.224.113.237 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as per |EPO|. --Panther 14:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]