File talk:Michele Merkin 1.jpg

Deletion request!?

The Wikimedia projects have, above all else, an educational aim [1]. How does this image educate? I propose to delete it. Q0k (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Images that are used on other projects are "considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose". A quality picture of a notable person, obtained under a free license, is always useful. --Eusebius (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to describe what is the usefulness/educational content of this image. Q0k (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to. The other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation have found it useful, therefore it is considered in scope, per project policy. But if you need examples, it is for instance used to illustrate Glamour photography, Michele Merkin, Bikini, Beleza humana, Fotomodell, among MANY others. It might not be useful for you, but it is useful for other people and projects. --Eusebius (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well spoken, Eusebius. Besides I find very educational, that pictures probably intended for commercial use can be shared under cc-licences. -- Torsten (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate for the Commons Picture of the Day

I'm not saying the file should be deleted, but I find this type of image offensive (pornographic, even though mild and generally accepted by society) and don't think images like this should come up as the Picture of the Day. If someone is searching for examples of "glamour" photography, they should be able to find it, but it shouldn't be popping up when I look at the POD. Thicks001 (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm frightened by arachnid pictures. When they come up as POTDs, I just don't look. --Eusebius (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you know it's a spider until you see it? If a person has arachnophobia and the sight of a picture of a spider might trigger a panic attack, wouldn't it be better if he or she didn't see it or had some warning? Well, if a person has had trouble with pornography but enjoys the Wikimedia POTD for its variety of presentations, he'd like to know ahead of time not to look at a day's page if it even inches towards pornography as yesterday's "glamour shot" did. When I saw the picture, it didn't take more than .25 seconds for me to recognize its "genre." It's an "adult" picture and shouldn't be the POTD. Comparing it to a picture of a spider or insect doesn't hold water. Thicks001 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, you can see more skin on the front page of a haute couture website... This is really far away from pornography. Anyway, I stop replying here. --Eusebius (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)