Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Donkey punch" (animated).gif

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.
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:TTSGA.gif

[edit]

 Delete The picture is showing a brutal action to another person. I see a risk, that some is learning that action on wikipedia commons for doing that to another person, wich consider a criminal act. We should not support these acts. The pictures is linked to an articel, decribing this action. I think we even don´t need the illustration of it. Gegensystem (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the picture filters of wikipedia is coming very soon. We have to protect our Childrens of seeing this. -- Gegensystem (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is personal and stupid! And i ignore it (you). -- Gegensystem (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Please protect our children from positions like this. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 09:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: We don't care about the legality of what our media depict, as long as the media itself is legal. In use, not censored. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Donkey_punch"_(animated).gif

[edit]

the w:donkey punch is a myth/hoax; there is no need to illustrate how to do something that does not work. The only appropriate illustration would depict the actual likely repercussions of an attempt to perform this act. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - this image was kept at DR 5 months ago - Commons:Deletion requests/File:TTSGA.gif. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • note that this image was in use in that en.wikipedia article until it was deleted by Delicious carbuncle two days ago... meh.  Keep - why should a myth which is even relevant enough to have an Wikipedia article not be allowed to be depicted?! COM:NOTCENSORED, thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 19:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the educational value of the image though? If we want to educate people, we need to (and do) tell them that this is an urban legend, and that in real life it would be a very poor idea indeed to hit someone like that. It might leave them paralysed, or dead. This image is of no help here in delivering that message; rather the contrary. --JN466 20:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
       Keep - We are not here to editorialise. The image was in use, for a long time, so clearly it is educational. Even if not in use now, it was in use and so would be better left for people viewing the page history. Otherwise... well, it's an image depicting an act which is notable enough to have a wikipedia article, that is the sort of thing we routinely provide images for. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saibo, you appear to be confusing "deletion" with "removal". I removed the animation from the article. I did not delete it - that is the discussion that is happening here. The animation is cartoonish and unnecessary. The text describes what is alleged to happen - the animation does not increase the reader's understanding. I have no opinion of whether or not the animation should be deleted here, but it does not belong in that article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Is this like Wikipedia, where everything someone doesn't like gets renominated for deletion every six months until it dies, regardless of the merits? N.B. in response to "The only appropriate illustration would depict the actual likely repercussions of an attempt to perform this act", I wouldn't mind if someone wants to add a third comic frame showing the guy getting his mug shot while the lady in a neck brace points him out angrily. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You've ignored the basis for deletion. The previous DR was focused on whether Commons is censored. If it were an animation of an actual sex act, or steps to make a bomb, "not censored" would be a valid argument. However, in this DR I am saying the animation is erroneous and therefore it is disinformation and promotion of a hoax. It would be like having an animation of a severed yet "re-animated" head of an evil scientist forc[ing] a zombie father to strip his beautiful daughter so he, the evil head, can lick her naked body from the bedpan he's sitting in and--yes--even go down on her.[1]. (that is the same source used for "Donkey punch") John Vandenberg (chat) 09:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Should we remove all illustrations of dragons because they are hoaxes ? Léna (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because there is a long and culturally notable history of artwork depicting dragons in secular, religious and alchemical contexts. So of course we would have examples in Commons, they are educational. You can find educational sources in the real world that contain such images. (Depictions of dragons have the added advantage of not modelling behaviour that might break someone's neck.) Cheers, --JN466 01:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Since doesn't exist. Now all the castration articles could use that person's talents, don't you think? One for ritual, one for punitive, one for crime, one for transsexual operation, etc. since I'm sure there are all sorts of techniques. Let's keep this encyclopedic! Carolmooredc (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have a point there. w:Sex reassignment surgery is completely unillustrated! Isn't there one of those quack doctors who would CC-license a surgery video for us to use? Certainly it would be a useful improvement to the article. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This will always be an ongoing discussion here or on the talk page. The animation is actually OK in my opinion considering the nature of the subject. The Foundation has expressed the importance of images while editors (along with scholars) have written essays on how we all take in content differently.
Not using actual photographs has been a good thing for the project since we can illustrate images while at least tempering the knee-jerk reactions. But the alternative to such an image is an actual photograph of someone (I'll be the receiver or giver if we really want to start taking pictures). it all comes down to an image assisting the article. if you don't want to see it you have the following options: Don't search for such a vile subject 2: Adjust your settings. Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please have another think. Haven't you just gone automatically into NOTCENSORED mode because the image may be offensive? Offensiveness is not a reason to delete, but in itself offensiveness is not a reason to keep an image, either. To be in scope, it has to be educational, which means “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. That comes first. It is the basic requirement, before any thoughts of offensiveness and ignoring offensiveness come into play. So, what legitimate knowledge, instruction or information does this image actually provide? As far as I can see, it provides misinformation, and potentially life-threatening misinformation at that, by creating the impression that this is a sexual practice that is actually performed, and potentially tempting some ignorant kid to try it. What is the educational purpose here – teaching someone how to break a girl's or woman's neck and land yourself in jail? Can you imagine any bona fide educational source that would feature this image? Bear in mind that this animation has been viewed close to half a million times over the past quarter of a year. If there isn't an educational purpose, are we keeping it for lulz then? --JN466 05:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe we don't see the same things in this picture, so I'm going to explain what I see. I see a man being extremely violent to a woman for his sole pleasure and the woman being in incredible pain and danger, especially in the second part of the animation. I think the violence of the hoax is really more accessible with this animation than with "just" text, in the same way pictures in Category:Graph theory make complex notions more easily understandable. I think it says a lot about American culture, especially its vision of sexuality and men/women relationships, that such a hoax could occur and become popular. Léna (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Please as already said COM:NOTCENSORED. The image is violent, we can describe it more accurately. We can also put a warning we are not bound to neutrality as on wikipedia. I would rather have this hoax described and clearly illustrated with the good warning than censored. PierreSelim (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a new keep argument: a recently created animation is comparatively old, therefore it is educationally significant. The mind boggles. At en-WP we call this WP:ILIKEIT... Carrite (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is badgering part of the normal protocol here? Carrite (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - conveys nothing beyond what would be conveyed in words, so no educational value. An image that could incite or normalise violence is something we should be very careful about holding, and only keep if it truly serves a real purpose. To quote a recent Arbcom ruling on en-wiki, Notcensored should be the start of a discussion, not the end of it. Jheald (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but no, that "educational value" riff is an argument against its inclusion at en.wp, not an argument for it being deleted here. We don't have a donkey punch article, we just host pictures, and given it was in use for years, it has educational value. Further, we don't care about what Arbcom say. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons is not your image repository. If an image has no educational value, it has no place being here. As for en.Arbcom, no they don't set the rules here -- but we can still recognise when they have talked good sense. Jheald (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an example of extremely poor reasoning from Mattbuck, and not the only one on this page. The article that used the image also said, for three years, that "When used, the donkey punch is almost exclusively executed during or just before the orgasm of the penetrating partner (see orgasm control).[3]" The sourcing for this was http://gawker.com/news/rape-is-comedy-gold/patrice-oneal-explains-donkey+punching-on-fox-news-260907.php – a talk show where they were discussing jokes. The fact that something ludicrous was in an article that clearly lacked any kind of quality control, and was cobbled together by editors unable or unwilling to produce quality work, does not mean that such content thereby becomes "educational". (By the way, what en:WP arbcom said was at least partly based on what the Wikimedia Foundation board said, addressing Commons in particular.) --JN466 12:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't understand what I'm saying. I am saying that the arguments that "it could be conveyed in words" is not a reason for its removal on Commons. Why? Because we don't do words. We do pictures, sounds and video, we don't want text. This image illustrated the en.wp article for several years, therefore it has shown educational usage, regardless of whether it is in use now. We could show many of our images in words, but that doesn't mean we should delete the images. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This image illustrated the en.wp article for several years is similar to This false argument/fact/statement has been placed within the en.wp article for several years so tough luck for you, now it is educational and you have to shut up.. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "years" is clearly false. The animated image was uploaded in October 2010, so it has been only a year and four months. There was an RFC about the single frame File:Donkey punch.jpg, and the little feedback given indicated that the community didnt feel that the article needed illustration. Flyingfeck than created an animation and added it to the article with the edit summary "image added as per talk page", which is not what the RFC suggested. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete As long we are talking about a putative "maybe" situation (urban legend), this image is misleading and hence not of any educational scope - just as useful as showing how Caesar's voice rang. The keep-fraction only shows the false argument "not censored" which - as usual - passes fully the arguments of the deletion debate here. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete You know, I was going to put together an argument against this based on the educational value of adding an illustration to a hoax article, but that isn't my main reason to oppose. This is a DISGUSTING, GRATUITOUS PORTRAYAL OF FANTASY SEXUAL VIOLENCE THAT HAS NO PLACE IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. People need to stop pretending this is some sort of patriotic free speech BS and admit they just like the idea of putting shocking, violent porn on Wikipedia for the kiddies to see. --JaGa (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for being honest at least. Let me destroy your argument one statement at the time. 1) This is not a vote, it is about the strength of your arguments, if you aren't able to come up with a good argument perhaps that's because the image should be kept. 2) Illustration on the artile about a hoax is educational if it's stated that it's a hoax, and also don't confuse hoax article (that's an article that isn't really an article?) and an article about a hoax. 3) Commons is not an encyclopaedia. 4) Commons is not sencored, and we have disgusting and sexual things here; we also have things which are both sexual and disgusting. 5) Commons is an international project, nothing about it is "patriotic". 6) COM:NOTCENSORED is a policy not BS. 6) This file doesn't reside on Wikipedia, it resides on Commons, you are making this statement on Commons, there is a logo of Commons on this site in the plain sight, how hard it this to understand? 7) Mediawiki is a collection of projects for adults and elderly as well as "kiddies". 8) Even if children will see this image, i think that putting it in the context is a better thing than censoring it. That is called being rational and not reactional. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) Who said anything about a vote? 2) What educational value is there of illustrating a sexual practice that doesn't exist? The illustration helps create the illusion that it is not a hoax, by saying, "hey, this is an urban myth, and here's how it works". Why not give me an animation of unaided human-powered Earth flight as well? "Here's a guy flapping his arms like wings, and here he is flying! This is a myth of course." That doesn't improve the educational value of an article; it confuses it. 3) True, far from it. 4) True, it isn't "sencored", but it isn't a porn warehouse either, is it? Or maybe it is? 5) Your interpretation of the policy is where the BS comes from 6) And I'll make sure it stays out of EN wiki 7) Duh 8) Yeah, giving people a "how to" illustration of violent, imaginary sexual acts is a great thing for society. It would be one thing if it was an actual thing. But it isn't, is it? That makes this all just so gratuitous and pointless. --JaGa (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) You said that you couldn't be bothered to write an argument and simply put {{Vd}} in the beginning of that. 2) Category:Perpetual motion machines has tons of stuff that simply won't work. And if somebody creates an image of unpowered human flight i would argue that it should be kept. 4) It is not a porn warehouse, it's a warehouse of all educationally useful media whether you like that media or not. 5) The policy states that Commons is an international project, it is not "interpretation" and it is not BS. 6) If you are an admin on En.Wiki you should have those rights taken away for abusing your powers, if you are not then you have no power over what is there. 8) No, a good thing for the society is to place this image in context, your attempt to twist my words has failed. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 22:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep To those arguing that it should be deleted because it has "no discernible educational value", please take another look at COM:SCOPE, specifically, A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough...It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope. This file was in use on en-wp until very recently, and the removal is disputed. Further, it remains in use on en-quote. Because it is legitimately in use in a WMF project, it is automatically in scope. cmadler (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Abstain Not having heard of this awful (presumed) sex act before, I found this illustration educational in comprehendingthis illustration seems to have misled me about what was being described, judging by Jayen466's porn clips below. Being a myth should be no disqualification, we keep images illustrating dragons, unicorns, and angels, after all. I should hope the Wikipedia article this illustrates explains that this act is dangerous and ineffective. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC) ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some people might go to the wall to defend this image, I would not. It is part of a longstanding problem of people uploading mediocre sexual images to Commons. I voted delete knowing that it would not be popular, but that's the way it is.--Ianmacm (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is another aspect to this, which is that even such donkey punches as have been performed by porn actors to cash in on this urban legend don't look like this. Porn actors are aware that breaking their co-stars' necks is not on the script. There is nothing educational or encyclopedic about the content and intent of this image uploaded by "User:Flyingfeck", whatsoever. --JN466 14:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone seems to be agreed that this GIF animation depicts a fantasy scenario. There is no third frame showing the woman in a wheelchair or dead. It is unclear how the educational aspect occurs in this image. Also, it is obvious that frames 1 and 2 are not the work of the same artist. This is the sort of image that can generate the COM:NOTCENSORED response, but it also has to be borne in mind that material on Commons must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.--Ianmacm (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the point right below where you linked: A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. cmadler (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an exception to the rule. There is nothing to stop someone adding the image to an article once it has been uploaded, but that does not automatically mean that it is a good idea to have it. This crudely drawn image image depicts fantasy violence in a way that is both inaccurate and potentially dangerous. Sadly, this is not the first time that every rule in the book has been used to justify low value sexual images on Commons, but on this occasion there is a need to take a few steps back, and ask questions such as "would a mainstream academic journal publish this image?"--Ianmacm (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all the things that Commons is not, it is definitely not a mainstream academic journal. I myself do strive for a higher standard in my uploads, but that means that we should improve the quality, not delete stuff. I say that if people don't like the image and have some artistic skills, they should draw a better version. I would but i can't. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 06:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I was involved with writing the article w:donkey punch (which I'm not) I would not touch this image with a ten foot pole. It is hastily cobbled together and the fact that it is copyright free and available is irrelevant. Images used in articles should meet a minimum technical and artistic standard, this one does not. I would suggest deleting it, but better still not using it in any articles unless something better is available.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People actually involved in writing the article get to make decisions about which images they use. If you want an option on whether or not to use this in an article, you need to edit the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If you'd like to see what it looks like in a porn movie, see these clips. For those who don't want to see it, suffice it to say that it does look completely different from this animation—because the kind of punch that is shown in this animation would kill the woman, or paralyse her for life. It's a joke drawing, and in very poor taste. Also worth reading: [4]. --JN466 21:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting it be done, nor is hosting the image endorsing it. We have many other images of torture/etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The information from the link should definitely be added to the wikipedia article, and perhaps we should add a link to the description page of the image. And keep in mind that we can't spread the info if we censor. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 23:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not listening, Mattbuck. Even in those cases where adult film makers have asked actors to perform a donkey punch, to cash in on the urban legend, it does not look like it does in this animation. The animation is pure fantasy, and nasty fantasy at that. --JN466 14:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Entirely comprised of original research. As several editors have pointed out, this isn't even an accurate depiction. This file has no legitimate educational value and is out of the commons project scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We're here to provide an image server for other Wikimedia projects. En.WP has demonstrated that there is a use, even if it is borderline and controversial.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might have gone with that argument three years ago. But since then it's become clear that this rule "it's educational if it is or has been in use in a project" is gamed. We need a better definition of educational quality than "Oh, User:Flyingfuck inserted it in an en:WP article, so it must be educational" because, as definitions of "educational value" go, that one's pathetic. --JN466 14:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if we change the definition just for this image, it's still going to be a keeper. The image wasn't "inserted by some user to keep", rather it was on the page for 2 years, and then all of the sudden it was deleted. If anything it's the deletionists who are gaming the system by removing the image and then proposing it for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was in a poorly-referenced, shite article with unreliable and mispresented sources; inserted by User:Flyingfeck, whose edit history indicates anything but an interest in education. Since this deletion request started, the image has been inserted on about a dozen distinct and mostly new pages in Wiktionary, and it was added to a newly created page in Wikiquote ... Pathetic. --JN466 15:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to change policy, go argue it on a policy page. This image is clearly currently in use on multiple Wikis, and is thus in scope as per policy. You don't like that, go argue on COM:SCOPE, not here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Delete It was inserted as a hoax. NOTCENSORED ahould not mean we should keep any old piece of mysogynist crap.--Peter cohen 15:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It’s interesting how Jayen466 criticize using this image on a newly created pages on Wiktionary, but don’t mention his failed attempt to remove image from Spanish Wikipedia. Fortunately, a female administrator of Spanish Wikipedia reverted his edits. This is a part of what she wrote to him: ....If you delete (the image) there, a bot will delete it here. But removing it to say in the debate "is not in use" is called sabotage. Let the Commons community make their own decisions....By the way, I am woman and I have no problem with insertion and use of encyclopedic images. I completely agree with her comment.--В и к и в и н др е ц и 18:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I deleted the image from the Spanish article well before this deletion request was started, and did so because of my prior work on the English article. I had no intention of nominating the image for deletion here, because I'm not usually a masochist. --JN466 19:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was a similar image related controversy in April 2010, covered at w:Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons. The donkey punch image, although not child porn, highlights how easy it is for mediocre and controversial sexual images to be uploaded to Commons. Most serious publications would not want this image even if it was free, so there does need to be a look at quality control on Commons once again (BTW if User:Flyingfeck actually is the author of this image I would be extremely surprised).--Ianmacm (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Wikipedia Review, the originator was an Encyclopedia Dramatica editor who did it for the lulz, and because Wikipedia editors were actually stupid enough to ask for an image on the talk page: [5] The funniest quote from that log is,
If someone in es:WP says "Wikipedia editors were actually stupid enough", it´s considerated a personal attack. I don´t know how stuffs works here, but doesn't look very polite. I have no particular interest in the picture. I have no doubts if the image is deleted in Commons will be deleted in es:WP. There are lot of bots who use to do that. As user with 800 edits in Commons, and admin in es:WP I know the rules very well.

The real problem here is that an user deleted the picture from es:WP and that was used as excuse to delete "because is not longer in use". That's not true. The picture were there for 2 years without any problem. Deleted or not is not a matther from es:WP. But if someone delete the picture and immediately says "is not longer in use, we can delete it" that in es:WP is not other than "disruption". If there are good arguments, picture will be deleted. If not, will kept. But please, delete things to win a point is not admisible. Even if no one says -yet- the picture is not longer in use, is not admissible in the future. Is there is a problem in en:WP, there is no reason to bring it to es:WP. Solve the future of the image here, and accordingly we will know what to do with it. Regards. --Andrea (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see polite is not common in this place. I said "even if someone in the future try to deleted because is not longer in use, that´s not true". --Andrea (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Please delete. I am a woman from a working class background. I didn't weigh in on the article's talk page because frankly, I wouldn't know how to deal with the arguments put forward by the people desperate to keep the animated image in the article without tearing my hair out. Cptnono re-inserted the animated image into the article and put 'vent on the talk page' in his edit summary in reply to my deleting it. To me, the arguments put forward here in favor of keeping this gif are on a level with your esteemed user Russavia taunting Natka Brown on Jimbo's talk page with regards to [6] Natka trying to explain why she wouldn't accidentally like to come across a masturbation video on Commons when working with her granddaughter by her side. I'm all in favor of free speech where it's appropriate, but this is not the place. How about just doing the right thing? DracoEssentialis (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does your gender have to do with COM:SCOPE??? If you don't want to see images of dunkey punch, then why did you go to that page? The world does not owe you the right not to be offended, it's a construct of the recent years that is actually defending misogyny, so if anything you are siding with your enemy right now. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So in your opinion the desire to read an article should equate to a desire to view an imbecilic drawing uploaded by a smart troll? What a bunch of self-serving rationalisation. --JN466 08:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Delete per Ianmacm. This has nothing at all to do with censorship or even to do with the fact that the image seems to have been created as a prank. Purely and simply, it is a worthless piece of crap that adds nothing of value to the article. If I ever wanted to know what this particular act of violence would look like if it were drawn by an imbecile, I have a pencil. --FormerIP (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The nom's argument is essentially a perfect representation of arguments to avoid. Something being a hoax has no relevance to its article or an image of the subject of the article. It "not working" similarly has no relevance. And then the desire to inform people about the "repercussions" of something the nom calls a hoax is pointless. The articles on the subject in question clearly point out that it doesn't work anyways, so that issue is already dealt with. All the arguments that there is "no encyclopedic value" is opposed by the fact that the image is an illustration of a subject that is currently in use across Wikipedia.
Therefore, any delete arguments above about "hoax", "doesn't work", "decency", and "no educational value" should be dismissed. Oh look, that gets rid of all of them, doesn't it? SilverserenC
Well, I already explained above how the nom's argument isn't actually arguing anything related to an actual argument for deletion. And both JaGa and Carrite's arguments boil down to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, also without any real argument for deletion. And I don't understand how original research applies to the existence of an image at all. That just seems bizarre. SilverserenC
This image looks like it has wandered in from w:Encyclopedia Dramatica by mistake. Wikipedia readers deserve better than this crudely drawn piece of junk.--Ianmacm (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason to continue?

[edit]

After canvasing everywhere the vote stands at 13-13, and right now the proposals are moving towards "Let's close Commons down and have only local projects or better yet uninvent wiki all together". The truth of the matter is that nobody is going to close commons or even rewrite project scope just to delete this image... it's too insignificant. If you disagree, try asking people who aren't engaged in this discussion, i went and talked to people, the response is "yeah, it was a hoax, but now it's an image showing a hoax". So shouldn't we just close this discussion and move on to contribute to commons to make it a better place, i have been trying to keep myself away from this discussion and i've uploaded tons of interviews with novelists and journalists that i have found. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obiviously you haven't understood the policies and the purpose of commons. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Obiviously it's about trying to post to deletion debates as fast as possible and to have media deleted. Obiviously it's not about providing content to other wikimedia projects and others. Obiviously it's about gaming the system to get your point across. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not canvassed to come here, and like around 380,000 others this month, saw the image as a result of the media coverage generated by the Jeopardy incident.--Ianmacm (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: On Commons, we concern ourselves with two main issues. Firstly, and most importantly, only freely-licenced materials can be hosted here. Secondly, and once the freely-licenced aspect is met, materials must be within our scope; in particular the provision of educational media. 

Reviewing the history of the file, prior to this DR, I see that the file has seen use on both English Wikipedia (en:Donkey punch) since 21 October 2010[7], and Spanish Wikipedia (es:Donkey punch) since 16 February 2011[8]. Whether other WMF projects use this image is not decided at Commons, but on local projects. Commons should not be used as a tool to skirt local project discussions on usability of media on those projects. 

Having said that, there are potential copyright issues with this file, which will not be resolved by way of this DR. There is another DR underway at present, which will determine whether the underlying work on this particular file is kept or deleted. If deleted, this image as a derivative of that work, will also be deleted. If kept, as I noted to an editor here, there are alleged Encyclopedia Dramatica IRC logs which indicate that the uploader is not the "copyright" owner of this image. (Quote: [2010-10-21 05:43:18] <ptime> I'll list it as my own work). As the uploader is not an established member of the community, the image has been marked with {{No permission}}, which is going to require OTRS processing. As mentioned to the editor, if any permission is received, it is going to be a stringent OTRS verification, given the source. russavia (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Donkey_punch%22_(animated).gif&oldid=67112326"