Commons:Deletion requests/File:Venus de Tamtoc 2.webm
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:Venus de Tamtoc 2.webm[edit]
OOS digital fantasy woman. (Compliments on your work, but IMO not realistically useful for Commons.) Relationship to pre-Columbian sculpture is minimal at best. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks on the compliments. I based the body proportions and shape to the pre-contact statue known as Venus of Tamtoc, including the sacred scarifications. The original statue is nude. There is relationship based on all that except the head and feet.
- Would a video of the comparison of the dimensions be accepted? The original documentary I did about her is in YouTube. Should I upload the entire documentary?
- I understand your preoccupation, although unlike Wikipedia I thought Wikimedia was not about gathering consensus around an image’s claim —- or sources for said claims.
- If a painting is said to portray, say Joan of Arc, and she wouldn’t fit into the image of someone’s idea of Joan of Arc… would that painting also be deleted? I ask sincerely, because I’ve been uploading paintings and drawings as well. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Keep did you even read the description? This is a recreation of an ancient statue, not a “digital fantasy woman”. It would be nice to have a comparison image of the actual statue, but if there’s a concern here it’s accuracy rather than “it’s porn lol” Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I certainly did read the description before making this nomination. I am familiar with the pre-Columbian statue (and you can be as well by doing a search for photos), after which you can make up your own mind as to if this can legitimately be considered an educational archaeological reconstruction or more of a digital fantasy woman with a few details vaguely influenced by the pre-Columbian art. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- It appears to be an accurate recreation. I mostly object to your characterization of it as an “OOS fantasy woman”, which in this context (a good faith contribution To an in-scope topic) is a vague non-rationale that also seems like you’re insinuating a sexual ulterior motive as a reason to delete. Dronebogus (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I certainly did read the description before making this nomination. I am familiar with the pre-Columbian statue (and you can be as well by doing a search for photos), after which you can make up your own mind as to if this can legitimately be considered an educational archaeological reconstruction or more of a digital fantasy woman with a few details vaguely influenced by the pre-Columbian art. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Yann (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)- Delete per nom. Video doesn't even show a statue, but a moving woman, appearing as if alive. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. —holly {chat} 21:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)