Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures of that Christina B.

< Commons:Deletion requests
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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Pictures of that Christina B.|year=2024|month=April|day=26}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Pictures of that Christina B.|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures of that Christina B.}} at the end of today's log.

Pictures of that Christina B. edit

All those Christina B. pictures have in common three problems, that qualifies them for deletion:

  1. The FlickR uploader has vanished, so the license question is on debate (with more and more FlickR-washing is evident, FlickR is NOT automatically thrustworthy)
  2. We donna know anything about personal rights, does that person know or want to be shown (COM:PEOPLE)?
  3. Out of scope: In my opinion, all those "Christina B"-pictures are useless for an encyclopedia. What is the educational purpose? Why does commons need those pictures at all costs? What exactly can we learn about those "Look, I am nude in the public" (?) pictures? (Exception: File:Christina_B_fingering.jpg) --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Flickr license is not in question. The fact they are vanished has no bearing whatsoever on the license -- it is just as easy to prove a flickrwash as it was before. When claiming that on a mass deletion, you should at least find *some* of them elsewhere. In this case, they are similarish amateur pictures taken with the same camera -- very likely Flickr was the original source.
  2. Personality rights are not a reason for deletion; they are only relevant in an advertising context, really. Most of these seem to have been taken in public, so privacy rights are a little dubious too (though a couple are indoors). If there was a request from the person themselves though I'd say differently.
  3. I can agree here. This is just a series of personal photos of someone random; the only thing out of the ordinary is the lack of clothes. I'm not sure that makes them educational in and of themselves for the most part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say  Keep for several reasons. For points 1 and 2, I agree with Carl Lindberg (see above) and for point 2 I'd add that the (former) Flickr user claimed to be the model herself so if we have no reason not to trust her (is there any valid argument ?) then that means that she agreed to show and release her pictures. As for the usefulness, I'm sick of repeating that nudity, eroticism and sexuality are encyclopedical subjects of knowledge or sociology or anything. And unused doesn't mean useless (for any subject on Commons, we have a variety of choice because it would be a nonsense to add the information "you can find more on Commons" on Wikipedia articles if the reader would find only the pictures used in the article he read !!!). But I can change my mind if anyone brings a clever and objective argument. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say: Again, you just have your assumptions for points 1 + 2, so no proof as for the license and COM:PEOPLE. For point 3 you haven't given any arguments, too, but just claiming something like "sexuality are encyclopedical subjects of knowledge or sociology" which is your personal POV and does not relate to any of my concerns.
    Taken together: Commons is not a database for pictures of questionable licence and more than questionable scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On Commons there's also a "assume good faith" rule so it applies if we don't have clear reasons to question points 1 and 2 (wihich is the case here). As for point 3, I'm just always surprised to see how people lose their objectivity in terms of usefulness and/or quality when it concerns nudity or sexuality. Strangely, there's never (or almost never) such a debat on other types of pictures. Be objective ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Klick. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, do you think you respect what a debate should be by saying your opponents have no arguments while you have none yourself ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, have you i.e. given hard facts about point 1 or 2? Or have you given any plausible reasons why those pictures are educational? Instead, I read all the time something about "censorship", assumptions or accusations etc.pp. "Want to because I like it" is not an argument. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I think I did, yes, and I would be happy to develop. BUT from the beginning of this DR, I must say I have the feeling you don't try hard to read/understand other people's arguments AND you kind of annihilate any debate (behaviour which led me to my previous censored comment) by 1) claiming people have no argument, 2) not bringing any developped argument yourself ("it's not educational"... well, it's a little short, isn't it ?). So, as I said, I'd be happy to (re-)develop my POV but I want to be sure I don't lose my time for nothing ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    From longer time ago I have the impression that you are uploading pictures from FlickR without any educcational purpose. Noone it this or other related discussions have ever tried to demonstrate the putative scope.
    I strongly think that commons should not be abused as free web space, don't you agreee? Hence, if I have concerns about the scope and the license, you have to adress those issues, which would be no problem if e.g. there would be a clear scope. And exactly what arguments, facts and whatsoever have been presented ((former) Flickr user claimed is nowawsys NOTHING WORTH) for keeping it? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, take all the files I uploaded (that + that) and I dare you tell me the proportion of files you consider useless (I won't ask you to be objective because I'm not sure you're able to when I read all what you dare writing).
    But you know what ? I'm giving up ! After years on Commons, I'm sick to see people like you who try to bring censorship without admitting it. Because (let's keep COM:PEOPLE and licences apart because it's another matter) I've never never never read any objective argument explaining why nudity and sexuality were not deserving encylopedical and/or encyclopedic treatments (apart from being stuck to a "traditional/religious" POV that has nothing to do on a neutral project such as Commons), nor why those subjects were not deserving a variety of choice in terms of illustrations on Commons while "normal" subjects had that opportunity. So I'm sick of repeating things for nothing and having deaf opponents. I'm sick of wasting my time. Ciao. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, no educational use, out of scope. Personal photos of oneself and of friends taken from someones personal photo album, nothing that worth inclusion in our project. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What ed. value does e.g. File:FriedhofSeckbach1.jpg have? ... --Saibo (Δ) 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No thematic response to the question, as usual. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Other stuff exists" is not a valid reason for these files' existence. Please explain why THESE files are educational. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please have a look to the bottom of the files' pages? Right - categories. Do you really want me to nominate the picture I meantioned for deletion and quote you? I would like to not do it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, planes in the dark are much more educational than humans ... ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No thematic response to the question, as usual. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - sure - that is the better way round! --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this should be valid then we need to forbid flickr uploads to Commons of such pictures which US americans call porn and apply their crazy 2217 law (aka against humans law). It is not Commons aim to only keep pictures as long as they are on flickr. --Saibo (Δ) 21:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Commons aim to only keep pictures with a questionalbe scope and a questionalbe license regardless there are from flickr or not. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Saibo, I think that would be a good step to ensure we don't get images that we won't be able to keep. Obviously Commons must obey US law, no matter what you think of that law. --99of9 (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(disclaimer: there may be irony in my previous cmt) We currently do not obey US law in thousands of cases. If required to obey WMF should set up new servers in a country which is less censored and has more compatible copyright laws with European works. --Saibo (Δ) 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever! But wait a minute: you refer to FlickR? --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "if". Commons is required to follow US law. If you want to lobby the Foundation to move, go ahead, but until then, we are required to follow the law. Please nominate the "thousands of cases" for deletion. Personally I have not come across them or I already would have nominated them. --99of9 (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all copyvios (many e.g. in the "files needing categorizations") do not obey US law, all in Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S., and many PD-old-70 pictures which are not tagged as not complying URAA ... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Sorry, I have no problems with pictures of nudity on the commons, but these look like low quality private shots, I can't see a possible use for an article of one of our Wikis and I have doubts concerning personality rights here. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not only the repo for WM wikis, is it? And even if it would be: they could illustrate exhibitionism. "COM:People? Sorry - someone who is dancing naked on the street and apparently has published the pictures in flickr? What use they have? The most obvious use is simply to illustrate "exhibitionism"." I at undel req. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you know that the Flickr uploader is the person on those pictures? --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't - but one could think: my comment at the undel req.: "The flickr account was named "Christina Madsen" so it could even be her real name." Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per above: Low quality images with a doubtful license. --32X (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Pictures_of_that_Christina_B.&oldid=59827530"