Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brief Skinny Lad (5989161662).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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:Brief Skinny Lad (5989161662).jpg[edit]

Random, low quality party image that does not seem to serve any educational purpose. I can't see this image used for anything, especially considering the alternatives we have. And since this is a potential COM:IDENT issue, I suggest deletion. Conti|✉ 15:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep This is a great fun photo as part of Alberto Alonso's Flickrstream, certainly of use to illustrate gay guys, fancy dress, masks, skinny topless lads and underwear. The image is 1024px high, hardly low quality and the long exposure has added interesting lighting effects. Alberto is an experimental photographer, a design student and is notable for his homoerotic and non-sexual photography. There is no specific issue against Photographs of identifiable people that I can see here. Commons is overflowing with desperately bad quality and bad taste questionable photos of scantily clad young women, here is a bit of balance with an amusing photo of a scantily clad guy of reasonable quality. --Fæ (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really want me to point you to all the categories full of nude males? I'm pretty sure we're not lacking nude (or semi-nude) photos of either gender (or sexual preference, not that this matters for this picture). And you can call this picture "experimental" all day long, it's.. not exactly a high quality picture, to put it mildly. There are countless better pictures for all the categories you name. --Conti|✉ 17:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, please point me to the piles of photos of good looking skinny guys in briefs wearing ball masks at parties. Oh by the way, this is not a photo of a nude male, no matter if you call this photo that all day long. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • File:2012 Easter Bunny pictured here with the Boys of BJS NXS in Dallas. (7067372469).jpg. No ball mask, but hey, close enough. :) I don't really care what the picture shows, I just think it's such bad quality (or "experimental", as you say) that we really can't use it for anything. And given that we don't have explicit permission from the person pictured, I figured we might as well delete it and minimize the risk. --Conti|✉ 18:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, no matter how many times you repeat that the image is low or bad quality, the fact of the matter is that the photograph is perfectly usable with a good resolution and could easily be used as an illustrative graphic in an educational presentation on gay male sexual representation and machismo, or a delightful gay-friendly Christmas card. If you consider the Flickr set this image is part of, these series of photographs of men in briefs all taken on the same day, is very knowing, obviously intentionally and tastefully homoerotic, the models could be in no doubt that these photographs were part of Alberto's artwork and it is perfectly reasonable to judge that all of his models and friends are aware of his public Flickrstream where he shows off his photographs which have been public for the last 3 years. If you read through COM:IDENT, there are no known special consent requirements for Colombia (where this photo was taken) and USA law is taken as our guide, in which case no consent is required for this photograph. There is no "risk" here to be minimized and we are safely well within the policy of the precautionary principle. By the way, you appear to be struggling to find examples to refute my point as the image you picked out was used by me previously (see the File usage section); does this tell you something about how many of the 15 million images on Commons are tastefully homoerotic without being nude, crude or seen as potentially offensive? This image is fun, leave it be and find something of real concern to fret over. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)u[reply]
            • I'm not really sure why you keep pointing out in great detail that the picture depicts a gay male. It doesn't matter if he's gay or hetero or asexual. We routinely delete low quality pictures, and that's what I think this is. You obviously disagree, and that's fine. I still don't see a single use of this image where I wouldn't immediately exchange the picture with something of higher quality. As for tastefully homoerotic pictures without being nude, take your pick. --Conti|✉ 23:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The image is homoerotic, that matters to me as someone interested in the epicurean and homoerotic arts over the last eight or so millennia. Commons has no consensus whatsoever for a predefined limit on the maximum number of acceptable photographs to fulfil our project mission on any particular theme, and, as it happens, I believe this is the only homoerotic photograph on the entire project with a confident and amused looking slim guy in his yellow tight pants wearing a fun mask. Your example of the Topless men category is one I have helped populate and it has a distinct bias to well toned and muscled guys rather than skinny, and none is wearing a mask; hardly equivalent. Even if you do manage to find a better image that does meet the same criteria (I challenge you), there is no policy that would lead an administrator to delete what is for Commons a rare, and probably unique, artistic photograph. Anyway, I'd better get back to my uber-gay Christmas décor. Happy holidays. :-) --Fæ (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Of course you can always just demand for a picture exactly like this and then claim that there is no other like it ("Nonono, that one has a black mask with red stripes, not a red mask with black stripes. Totally different!"), and therefore we should keep it. And, again, that's fine. This is a matter of opinion, for the most part. Me, I see no realistic use of this picture in any context, ever. And that's mainly why I nominated it for deletion. Again, that's just an opinion. And by the way, I find it hilarious that you think I might be offended by this picture (or you) because it's gay. Keep trying to gross me out, please. :) --Conti|✉ 23:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent off the Flickrmail below as a precaution, though I believe is it clear that there can be no policy issue with this photograph that would support deletion by an administrator. --Fæ (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flickrmail sent by Fae, 22 Dec 12, 6.08AM GMT
To: Alberto Alonso
Subject: Question about an image of yours on Wikimedia Commons
Hi Alberto,

A number of your photographs have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (which means they can be used in Wikipedia and reused for the public benefit more widely) on exactly the same licence as you have used on Flickr.

The interesting photo of a skinny lad in a mask <http://www.flickr.com/photos/alberto-alonso-g-2010/5989161662/in/set-72157627103556443> is currently under deletion review as someone has raised concerns about the permission from the model. Legally, I do not believe permission is required, however to avoid any confusion, could you share any information about context, such as if the model was a friend of yours that is happy for the picture to be public and they are aware of possible reuse on the licence you have chosen as the photographer?

You can find the discussion at <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Brief_Skinny_Lad_%285989161662%29.jpg>.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.
Fae (Wikimedia Commons trusted user).
  • Thanks. That will hopefully clear up one of the issues with the picture. --Conti|✉ 10:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view there are no issues with this photograph, whether the Flickrmail gets a reply or not, only misinterpretations of Commons policy and guidelines. There seems to be confusion between a photographer deliberately choosing a long exposure to create a high exposure and colourful image with the perception of quality, quality per se is fine, particularly considering the resolution. There are no issues with personal rights, as previous explained there are no special requirements for consent in Columbia. This photograph is not of a nude, nor of someone's genitals, so the commonly accepted guidelines of Nudity, which are one of the few places where quality is a criteria, are not relevant. The photograph is homoerotic in my view, and probably that of most viewers, this is not a rationale for deletion that an administrator should accept, per Commons:Project scope#Censorship for any file that is reasonably justified to be in project scope. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can assure you that the homoeroticism of the picture has nothing whatsoever to do with why I nominated the picture for deletion. In fact, I did not even know nor assume anything of the sort until you brought it up, I figured it was just a random, bad party photo and nominated it as such. --Conti|✉ 11:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Fae - the nature of the photo according to him is homoerotic, so COM:IDENTITY is important here. If the author is known, then he should be able to verify permission. Not sure why all the time is being wasted but I don't really think this was more than a drive by and thus COM:IDENTITY will never be met. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, you may have missed above. There is no requirement to have permission from the model in Columbia and so there is no IDENT issue here. --Fæ (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those voting here for delete based on "we have plenty of others" or "could do better", please refer to some policy or guidelines. As a counter example, compare to the comments in the DR for a very dull and poor quality photo of a road File:Benicia-Martinez Bridge20121219p2.jpg. Of course, no homoerotic content there to excite anyone. --Fæ (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment– Let's be clear why there is a (growing) consensus to delete this file. It isn't because of homophobia. It's because this is a lousy picture, like a lot of other junk that gets uploaded every day. Bad photos like this are routinely deleted. Senator2029 03:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What policy or guideline do you expect the administrator to follow if they were to accept the argument that this is a "lousy" picture (as previously stated, I personally find nothing wrong with the quality of this 1024px high image, and would easily find it of use for an illustration in a presentation on perceptions of gender and diversity in Columbia)? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per consensus that this is out of COM:SCOPE because of the low photographic quality. The userpage usage after nomination is not a method for singlehandedly vetoing scope deletions. 99of9 (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Brief_Skinny_Lad_(5989161662).jpg&oldid=85873986"