Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downblouse

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downblouse[edit]

Obvious term, could maybe be merged with upskirt (wich is far more widely used) but in the end looks like a gratuitous excuse to insert an image of breasts. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A hold-my-nose keep. [1]. Yes, certainly an easy excuse, as with many others. PJM 00:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was the original author and I certainly didn't put in the article for gratuitous reasons but because it paired very well with upskirt and is a relevant examplle of voyeurism - unfortunately the article DOES attract a lot of vandalism. --PeterMarkSmith 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PJM, but delete picture if that can be justified. --Allen 00:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like the picture, both as a good illo of the topic and because she's cute. Are we allowed to have pictures like that on WP, though? Ikkyu2 00:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed the picture, and nominated it for speedy deletion for not having clearly invalid licensing information. --Allen 02:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean clearly valid, right? -Colin Kimbrell 18:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's not what I didn't mean. Thanks. :-) --Allen 19:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually a speedy, but the licensing tag on it ({{PD-ineligible}}) is clearly not valid. I've added {{nld}}, which is the correct license tag, and advised the uploader. However, I don't see any reason why the image should be used there. Stifle 00:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PJM. Stifle 23:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.