Commons:Deletion requests/File:Riley Reid AEE 2013.jpg
File, freely licensed but entirely unused, whose only known use at this point seems to be image-replacement attack vandalism by unconstructive editors (e.g. it was most recently used to replace an existing image of Sophie Gregoire Trudeau in her husband's article.) It hasn't even been used on the real photo subject's real BLP since 2014, because it was the most unnecessarily prurient option among several alternative choices -- so if we're not even using it where it does belong, there's no point in keeping it as a potential attack-edit magnet. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep If you have a vandalism problem, fight the vandals, don't demand deletion of files that might be used. The vandals won't have any problem whatsoever to find another file to abuse. And of course "unused" (unused in the Wikimedia projects that is) is no reason for deletion here and never was, as Commons is a media repository far beyond the small world of Wikipedia editors. The file is perfectly in project scope. --Vydra (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Might be used" for what purpose, if even the editors of the only article it could ever legitimately be added to consider it to be too prurient for use even there? And unless you've got some magical new insight into stopping vandalism that's eluded everybody else so far, kindly don't presume that "if you have a vandalism problem, fight the vandals" is useful or productive advice as if I don't already do entirely too much of that very thing every day as it is. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Might be used for vandalism is what I wanted to say. You clearly don't understand Commons, as nothing of what you write is in line with the Deletion policy, and you apparently only think in terms of Wikipedia articles. Please go back to Wikipedia and stay there instead of making unjustified deletion requests here. --Vydra (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Might be used" for what purpose, if even the editors of the only article it could ever legitimately be added to consider it to be too prurient for use even there? And unless you've got some magical new insight into stopping vandalism that's eluded everybody else so far, kindly don't presume that "if you have a vandalism problem, fight the vandals" is useful or productive advice as if I don't already do entirely too much of that very thing every day as it is. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. The woman is fully clothed (and even if she were not, that wouldn't be a valid reason for deletion), the license is fine, no reason to delete. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
