Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Charlotterossnypdblue


 * Copied from Images_and_media_for_deletion. Image was deleted


 * Image:Charlotterossnypdblue.jpg - UE Demi T/C 22:09, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
 * Neutral. This image is linked from only a user page. Is there a standing Wikipedia policy on whether or not it is inappropriate for users to have nude photos on their user pages? Firebug 06:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not as such, but user pages aren't personal webspace--they belong to the community and it's reasonable for people to remove content the community would prefer not be on there. Demi T/C 20:11, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
 * This was previously in the Charlotte Ross article itself. Check the edit history in the article. I have since reverted to another screencap (sans ass). Delete. Mike H 06:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike. You mentioned that you reverted the article, but could you clarify your reason for voting delete? TigerShark 19:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as Firebug mentions it is ONLY on MY user page. Therefore it's not a vandalism. -- TrojanMan 08:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Dude, you placed it in the Charlotte Ross article. Don't lie; we can all look at the edit history. Mike H 09:10, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's NOW only in MY user page. -- TrojanMan 21:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not if User:Sam Spade has anything to do with it...see Charlotte Ross, it'll no doubt be added back yet again. Mike H 21:23, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally UE.--Jyril 16:27, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think its encyclopedic, and put it back in the article, why not? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, because it's a doctored collage rather than a photograph or record of any kind? Demi T/C 20:11, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
 * Move to wikiporn :-) Bogdan | Talk 21:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest this be interpreted as a vote to delete, as there is no such wikimedia project. Demi T/C 20:28, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let's not put words in people's mouths. I personally would interpret it as a joke (given the emoticon), but unless the user wants to come back and formalise it into a valid vote I don't think it should be counted. TigerShark 23:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. silsor 21:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP. There already several images in Wikipedia that some would say are pornographic, such as those in breast implant, vagina, vulva. However, those images have not been deleted. The picture of Mr. Ross nude can indeed be encyclopedic, such as being used for the subject of nudity on the show NYPD Blue. Besides TrojanMan has a point about it being for his personal User page. I really don't see the harm in keeping the image. -- Crevaner 18:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A screen capture of the show would show that--this is a collage constructed for the purpose of ogling Ms. Ross. The other photographs you mention are illustrative; this is neither a photograph nor illustrative. Demi T/C 20:18, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic. &mdash;Markaci 2005-04-4 T 20:38 Z
 * Comment. Being unencyclopedic shouldn't stop it being on a user page. TigerShark 19:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only reason this would be worth keeping is if Charlotte's scene was especially noteworthy among nude scenes, which it's not. Besides, it has the tacky look of a collage taken from a celeb nudie site. KingTT 06:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being "tacky" is a matter of opinion. -- Judson 12:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course. This vote is one way of guaging community opinion. Since you vote to keep, can you let us know what encyclopedic purpose is served by the image? Demi T/C 17:18, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic, non-informative picture. Lets use some good common sense editorial discretion. Trödel| talk 18:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Damages Wikipedia.  Given this and the other images being voted on, it is time for a new policy "Wikipedia in not a pornography gallery"? --Audiovideo 19:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Audiovideo if you think a simple picture of nudity constitutes pornographic, then you would be shocked by the following articles: breast implant, vagina, vulva. A lot of you people really need to lighten up. The Charlotte Ross pic isn't pornographic by stretch of the word. -- Crevaner 19:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No - nudity is not itself pornographic, but images produced to arouse, titilate or shock can be. This one may be "soft" but it is pornography none the less.  I don't find the images you link to nearly as objectionable in an encyclopedia.  --Audiovideo 13:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep If it is acceptable to have a picture of some guy sucking himself off on an article page (which is how the Autofellatio2 vote looks like it is going) then I don't see why we can't have this on a user page. The encyclopedic nature and notability of this image are not relevant if they are only on a user page. The general consensus, in the Autofellatio2 vote, seems to be that questions of "taste" should not be a factor in deletions. If this is the case, fine, but we can't have it both ways. Either this should be allowed to stay or we should get rid of both of them. Otherwise we do need something along the lines of Audiovideo's suggestion. TigerShark 22:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW. If this image is deleted, somebody should upload Charlotterossnypdblue2.jpg (and so on) until everybody gives up voting against it. TigerShark 23:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Which would, of course, be an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Remember that Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg was not a re-upload or re-creation, but a new image specifically chosen to address some of the problems with the first. Demi T/C 17:28, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
 * No I don't think that is true. It may have addressed *some* issues that were raised during the vote, but it I believe that it was uploaded to make a point (i.e. that the whole voting process is flawed if somebody is determined to upload an image with a certain type of content). Anyway my main points of direct relevance to the issue at hand are in my original vote. TigerShark 19:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If Image:autofellatio2.jpg is deleted, delete this image. If Image:autofellatio2.jpg is kept, keep this image.  RickK 23:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless unorphaned in the main namespace (and it stays that way). It's inappropriate for a user page and in no way contributes to the building of an encyclopedia, and doesn't qualify as fair use there anyway.  &mdash;Korath (Talk) 05:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment How is you vote to be interpreted? If it stays on the user page, are you in fact voting Keep? TigerShark 19:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * User pages aren't in the main (that is, article) namespace. Keep if it's put in an article (and thus fair use and encyclopedic), delete if it isn't (and thus a copyvio and unencyclopedic). &mdash;Korath (Talk) 22:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems to me as if someone has misunderstood the meaning of Wikipedia. We do not want the server to be filled up with pornography. Many of us (me included) like pornography very much. But the number of pornographic pictures on this site ought to be strictly limited to what's absolutely needed to illustrate articles! Tuomas 09:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Tuomas said. Al this nudity on Wikipedia begins more and more to look like a WP:POINT to me.  &mdash; mark ✎ 12:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Very nice collage indeed, but seems to be an orphan and I don't think it's particularly encyclopedic.  I'd probably change to keep if someone started to use it in an article in a way that seemed encyclopedic. The fact that it's a picture of a woman with no clothes on isn't relevant to me.  The fact that it may be considered pornographic in some contexts isn't either.  It's just a very pretty picture. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I like to look at naked babes as much as the next Wikipedian, but this is not necessary for any article, and the image is all faded.  It also encourages people to think "If porn pix of this girl are OK, I can upload porn pix of elderly men defecating into each other's mouths", etc  :) &mdash; Helpful Dave 13:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gratuitous nudity; whereas a clothed autofellator would be ridiculous, Charlotte Ross can be illustrated with her clothes on. I'm all for keeping potentially-shocking but encyclopedic images; this is not one. I can't see an article this would really belong in; keep the naked actresses on your personal web space where they belong. (Unless Charlotte Ross nude in NYPD Blue wins the Millionth-topic pool...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete.  Whereas Image:autofellatio2.jpg is intended to illustrate, this image is clearly intended to arouse or titillate, thus, while Image:autofellatio2.jpg cannot be considered pornography (because its primary purpose is not to be sexually exciting, but rather to illustrate), this image can only be considered pornographic.  Whereas Image:autofellatio2.jpg has encyclopaedic purpose and value, this image has no conceivable encyclopaedic worth at all, in that it is simply a digital collage of a naked woman.  Whereas Image:autofellatio2.jpg is not placed in an article, but rather linked to a related topic, which it illustrates in a manner that no drawing can, this image is being placed in an article for no encyclopaedic reason.  Exploding Boy 17:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Why do people keep raising the issue of whether this is encyclopedic? There are no doubt hundreds (if not thousands) of images on user pages that are of no encyclopedic value. They don't need to be of encyclopedic value to be on a user page. If this image is ever linked to from an article, then the link should be removed (not the image). Can anybody come up with a reason for deleting this image that corresponds to an established deletion criteria? If Autofellatio2.jpg is kept, then any delete votes for this image which are justified on the grounds of "taste" or "pornography" should be discarded. Once again, we can't have it both ways. Either images can be deleted on grounds of "taste" or they can't (whether they should be linked to articles is another issue). TigerShark 19:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You say, Why do people keep raising the issue of whether this is encyclopedic? Because we're building an encyclopedia. Right at the top of the page you just added this comment to is a list of reasons to delete an image, of which "unencyclopedic" is one. Additionally, the guidelines for user pages make it clear that use of the pages is not unrestricted; that the page belongs to the community, which can ask that content be removed, and it gives a good idea of what should and shouldn't be on the page. A user page isn't a personal webspace and it isn't an "anything goes" zone. Demi T/C 19:19, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Of course the user page is not a free for all, but could you please point out which specific guideline(s) you think are incompatible with the image? TigerShark 19:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Does anybody have any thoughts on whether this image could be encyclopedic as an example of nudity on television (perhaps as part of the Nudity article)? Not the best image, but encyclopedic. TigerShark 19:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)