Commons:Deletion requests/File:Desnudo masculino-1.JPG

Add {{subst:delete-subst|REASON (mandatory)}} on the page Notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|File:Desnudo masculino-1.JPG}}~~~~ On the log, add : {{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Desnudo masculino-1.JPG}}

File:Desnudo masculino-1.JPG

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Useless and out of scope. Angelus ^(talk) 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep - oh, so YOU'RE the IP editor who asked for these to be speedied claiming they were useless while removing all the categories... It is in categories, so is not useless. Further, it's a good photo, and is useful in showing male nudity without being recognisable or removing the head via photoshop or crop. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  The head was removed via photoshop! You must look better! Try to be a little more accurate next time. Angelus ^(talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, so it has. I thought it was just sand. Please don't underline my comments. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep Recumbent nude. Why would it be out of scope ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

   Delete As mattbuck, I have to admit I didn't look at the picture with enough attention and I thought the guy had a recumbent position that allowed his face not to be shown (if you see what I mean) and that we were seeing sand. But when I look at the picture carefully, it indeed appears that this picture is of very bad quality because of the "blurred/hidden" face and that it would also mean that the guy didn't agree with (or is not aware of) the public release of the picture (therefore lack of respect towards this person even if he's theorically not recognizable on this file). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment @Mattbuck - Don't make insinuations. I have seen the recent changes and I decided to propose the deletion of the file.
  @TwoWings - What would be the purpose of this picture? There are better pictures that show the human body, like these:
  • File:Human anatomy.jpg
  • File:Frau - no background.png
  • File:Naked human male body front anterior.png

And moreover this image is also unused. It has no educational or encyclopedic value. Angelus ^(talk) 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep Not useless and in scope per Mattbuck and TwoWings. Also, just because an image is not in use it doesnt mean it has "no educational or encyclopedic value". By that kind of rational most of the images in Commons would be deleted. Tm (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Mattbuck and TwoWings changed their point of view. Angelus ^(talk) 15:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete "No educational or encyclopedic value" because there are better pictures that show the human body. What would be the purpose of this picture? Angelus ^(talk) 16:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of Commons is to give a variety of illustrations on a subject. Nudity is a subject as any subject. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are better images as alternatives. Angelus ^(talk) 17:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is just a point of view. There's no problem to have different alternatives and of different quality. The fact that you consider this file not good doesn't mean that no-one will find it interesting or of quality. We have to respect the diversity of choice (as long as the file is not of very bad quality, which is not the case here) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In this photo the face has been blurred! Angelus ^(talk) 19:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete As per nom. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep the blurring could be improved - but even if not: in scope and you did even list a woman picture as replacement....!? We do not editorialize other projects. --Saibo (Δ) 00:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)