File:April_Erotic.JPG

Totally inappropriate. Pornographic content. Monsterkillu (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep "Inappropriate" how? It is in category "Sexual fetishism", and seems relevent to topic. Nudity is not necessarily "pornographic", and in any case Wikimedia is not restricted to G rated content. Infrogmation (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep Useful e.g. as an example of a large labia minora. --Leyo 22:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep this DR is a set of DRs with invalid reasons (COM:NOTCENSORED). By the way: I have added some more categories to show you the usefulness. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep - no reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep this is no pornographic content but a naked woman wearing a breath of nothing --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep Can't see a reason for deletion... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Kept: per consensus above Trycatch (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:April_Erotic.JPG

Unused private photo, Out of scope Hold and wave (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep For the same reasons as last time. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy kept, just kept after deletion request a couple weeks ago. Infrogmation (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

File:April_Erotic.JPG

As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:April after !st act.jpg. Hold and wave (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep Same as in previous case. How often will you try the same thing over and over again? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep no new argument, close this useless DR --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Delete Per FloNight on the other case, does not meet COM:PEOPLE. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep - has been kept twice in the past 4 months, nothing has changed. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Something has changed. A group of some people hunts down images with mass {{vd}} votes, to get rid of them. See the Deletion request linked at the top as an example. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Mattbuck, please read FloNight's reason on the link. Pointing out a policy that people have ignored before is something that was overlooked in the above discussion. :) According to COM:PEOPLE, OTRS needs to have a slip that verifies consent from the individual in the picture. That is all. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep per 2 previous rulings. Inappropriate repeat listings. "Personality" rights not relevant as face not shown.

  Commons:PEOPLE - She is identifiable because she was named and other images could be used to identify her. Commons People's doesn't specify that a face has to be seen to be part of identifiable. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  So remove her name. By your argument, every picture of a person is identifiable, whether or not we have other pictures. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  That is what Commons People suggests as a possible solution. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  "Identifiable"? That seems a dubious stretch to me. "Named"? In what way? (Seriously, I'm at a loss. Is "April Erotic" the person's actual name? So rename the file if that worries you.) I'm not sure how "other images could be used to identify her" -- Um, what, someone might say to themselves "Hey, I recognize that vulva"? -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  The image was part of a set. To make her unidentifiable we would have to get rid of anything that links it to the set (like this or the one deleted above, etc.). By the way, the creator has had his images removed per "wife's request" before, which means that it should be easy to get his wife's permission, no () ? The uploader has an interesting series of edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment COM:PORN Missvain (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Which says what relevant? It's pretty clear that several people don't think this has no educational use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    • "There are no pages that link to this file." Since "05:25, 6 March 2011". If you think it has an educational use, find at least one page to put it in and that it stays there for more than a day. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Apply the same logic to the pictures of the Eifel Tower and have a happy tea party. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 00:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
        • You do know that we have deleted many Eifel Tower images, right? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Not for lacking links. Infrogmation (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
            • Ha, well, yes for the most part. :) There were other problems, such as the whole night time copyright nonsense. But like this, not all images can be used or useful. I just want some demonstration of potential. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Delete. An image of a photographer's woman in a private setting spreading her legs while wearing crotchless fishnet tights. What can this possibly illustrate — "Home pr0n for dummies"? Ari Linn (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted - although the previous keeps could be a reason to keep again, in this case there is clearly no realistic possible educative usage, making the file out of scope - Jcb (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored per udel --MGA73 (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:April Erotic.JPG

Wife no longer wants this photo on display as has no value Reddog11223 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep No valid reason for deletion. Since the face is cut off, she is not recognizable. --Leyo 06:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delete Although the deletion reason is invalid, this file is still clearly out of scope. It does not have any educational purpose. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  I disagree. Please elaborate. --Leyo 10:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Courtesy delete The norm on Commons is to allow courtesy deletions in reasonable circumstances. These are normally for recently uploaded images, however considering this is not in use and the original photographer is making this request, I encourage accommodating it. --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep Per Leyo. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delete - A courtesy deletion requested by the subject of an image that 's not in use and doesn't have significant value should be honored (as a courtesy). We should be respectful of the wishes of subjects, especially those who are not notable, double-plus especially when supported by the author and contributor. --SJ+ 04:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted - pretty easily replaceable, only use is a userpage, no reason to annoy the contributor. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)