File talk:Garment1.jpg

message: This image was nominated for deletion on Dec 16, 2006. The decision was to keep. -Nv8200p talk 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

message: :Uploaded by Duke53 ([ notify] | contribs).  Orphan, obsolete.  Originally this exact image was uploaded under a different filename (:Image:Garment.jpg), which is used on Temple garment and Undergarment.  The photo was controversial for various reasons (see Talk:Temple garment for the discussion), but was also regarded as having illustrative value that warranted its place on Wikipedia in the absence of a better alternative.  Five days ago, I provided an alternative: I digitally altered the photo per its GFDL license and replaced the original file (:Image:Garment.jpg) in order to remove the unencyclopedic aspects of the original while preserving its informativeness.  User:Duke53, the original contributor of the photo and only editor so far to object to the new version, has re-uploaded the original under the name of :Image:Garment1.jpg and linked to it from his user page to illustrate his contention that the new version is no improvement.  However, no article uses his re-uploaded version or is likely to, because a version exists that most editors involved in the original discussion agree is more encyclopedic and equally informative.  Also, the original photo can be reached via the image history of :Image:Garment.jpg.  Thus the re-uploaded image is both obsolete and orphaned, and should be deleted on these grounds. alanyst /talk/ 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason that anybody would like this image deleted is for censorship purposes. I use this image as a tool on my own user page to show that the  'newer' version of the image is really no improvement on this one. If you care to check, you can see that  alanyst and I have not seen eye-to-eye on much; I consider this an attempt to promote a pro-mormon POV once again, this time in the form of censorship of an innocent image. Duke53 | Talk 20:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My purpose is not censorship.  The orphaned status and obsolescence of the image are sufficient grounds for deletion, and POV has nothing to do with it.  Assume good faith. alanyst /talk/ 21:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Delete - as someone who has no invested interest in this image (or the LDS area) I think this image can go.  After reading the article talk page (especially archive 2) I can see this image caused quite an issue about being included.  While the replacement may not provide any further encylopedic information, it does attempt to address some of the issues raised in the discussion (privacy of models and removal of very busy background).  It appears that the concensus of the editors at the article page prefer the replacement; that concensus should be respected.  I might suggest that the orginal could be moved to commons in order not to lose this free image.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (Contr.) 22:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From wikipedia: "Obsolescence is when a person or object is no longer wanted even though it is still in good working order". This item is still wanted, by me, for use as a tool on my user page; editors should always be able to compare the two images, rather than have to take other editors 'word' for how the two images compare. It isn't as if Wikipedia will suffer a huge loss of server space by having this image remain. Assume good faith :) ... I certainly wish you'd follow your own advice; just saying it and not following it could be misconstrued as hypocrisy. This is an attempt at censorship, short and sweet. Duke53 | Talk 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am unsure of where your comments about AGF are targeted - also I do not under stand what advice you are suggesting I should take?  In regards to it being about censorship, I disagree - all that was removed from the image was the model's neck, arms, legs and the very patterned background.  The main content of the image still exists.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (Contr.) 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're using the wrong definition of obsolescence here, since Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion defines "obsolete" for us as it relates to rationales for image deletion.  That is the definition I am using in my comments on this page. alanyst /talk/ 23:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Garment1.jpg]] ([[Image talk:Garment1.jpg|talk]] | <span class="plainlinks" id="Image:Garment1.jpg">[{{fullurl:Image:Garment1.jpg|action=delete}} delete])</span>