Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fellatio1.jpg

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.

Image:Fellatio1.jpg

[edit]

Unnecessarily gratuitous. Doesn't add anything that multiple sketches in Category:Fellatio don't already cover. -- pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - I don't know what you mean by saying that it is gratuitous, but this photo illustrates something that obviously needs to be illustrated in real life, not just sketches. The Wikimedia projects are not censored, and shouldn't be.
They're not censored. As I said, we have sketches. Why exactly does it "obviously" need to be illustrated "in real life"? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I also think its a good illustration, and sometimes sketches are not enough! Keep it, wikipedia is about real life and living, we dont live in a happy sketch world! Julius G. --81.189.33.85 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete "Unnecessarily gratuitous". People should be given the option about whether watching or not at sexually explicit pictures. Which, by the way, I like to do. But as my personal choice. --User:G.dallorto 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, no obvious copyright problem, and it is a useful picture. It is not possible to identify the girl, so personality rights is not an issue. Kjetil r 13:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep --Econt 01:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Unencyclopedic, illegal to receive in certain jurisdictions (and thus failing commons requirements), and likely stolen from a pornography website Madmax32 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User contributions of original uploader show no evidence of credibility regarding copyright, only two uploads, both cropped thumbnail size images, professionally posed, likely copyright violations (but unfortunately difficult to prove conclusively) Madmax32 03:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In spite of the enthusiastic remarks by some here, hosting such images makes wikipedia fit the legal definition of a pornography website according to US federal law (and these are US hosted servers), I draw no conclusion from that, but just stating the facts Madmax32 03:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Madmax32 please do not confuse a legal opinion with a fact. The legal test of obscenity in the US is currently the Miller test that you can find stated in Wikipedia. On that basis you may argue law, but please do not harass those who have voted here.84.210.139.189 13:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, Andim 09:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, good enought and better than most sketchs. dontworry 11:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It is a simple and objective illustration free of artiness and it could have been photographed anywhere yesterday. FWIW everything in Wikimedia that is provided free is "gratuitous", and using that as pretext to attack this particular image seems due to the censorous POV of the objector (who has studied multiple sketches of fellatio already!) rather than any genuine encyclopedic concern.84.210.139.189 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it is not censorship, anonymous user from Norway, but the fact that this is not supposed to be a pornography host and fails to warn potential viewers of such graphic content, this must be stopped. Also go and get yourself an account, we don't count anonymous opinions here Madmax32 18:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Madmax32, thank you bothering to locate me, you are correct that I live in Norway and FWIW you can keep an eye on me at Wikipedia where I am "cuddlyable3". Here I am just a voter that you may count or discount as you wish. I labelled the objector's POV "censorous", which is of course my POV, but nowhere do I see censorship mentioned. However you seem to bring exactly the language of censorship ("This must be stopped!") to this discussion, and very outdated language at that. If you still think that viewers who have a right to objective information need their eyes shielded from encountering this graphic, and keep posting as zealously as you have done here, then you may find some support, but these are people who should consider which century - 19th 20th or 21st - they are living in. One other thing: you are not the boss of me.84.210.139.189 18:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, so how about this image, too? It is also in category "this is not supposed to be a pornography host and fails to warn potential viewers of such graphic content, this must be stopped", so how about removing it, too? 140.113.94.101 22:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks for pointing that out, it should be deleted as well. Let me put it this way are the admins here willing to accept responsibility when wikipedia is banned by libraries and schools worldwide (as well parental filters), because most adult websites are, and you are hosting explicit photographs and sketches of sexual acts. Madmax32 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to worry you too much, but en-WP and commons are full of porn. These 2 photos are only tip of the iceberg. Here are more examples: child porn, BDSM porn, a lot of photos of penises and vulvas, etc. etc...
  • Delete - No reason to have it. It only promotes further uploads of the same image by other editors who will think that their image is "better" than what is being used. Animated images fix this, as you don't see animated people arguing about which is looking the best. It will only bread other images like poeple taking pictures of themselves having anal sex, vaginal sex, masturbation, etc. Which will itself cause people to fight over who is doing it the best. It isn't censoring when you opt to use animated images. Censoring would be not allowing images of the act at all, or doing a black bar over the "offending" area to protect younger readers. What this is doing is keeping camera happy editors from clicking away at their privates, or the privates of others in an effort to have their junk on Wikipedia. Bignole 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bignole, I have contributed some animated images (on other subjects) and can assure you that people like me do argue sometimes about which is best. You draw some fine distinctions about what is and is not censorship, but what I see in your scary apocalyptic vision of anarchic mayhem is simply the CHILLING effect of censorship. If an editor wants to provide a better picture of anything, we say go ahead, be bold, do it. Selecting by consensus is not "fighting over who is doing it the best". I have voted  Keep Fellatio1.jpg while Delete Oralsexfemalesuckmale.jpg 84.210.139.189 13:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It's a perfect and legitimate image of the subject.
  •  Keep While certainly graphic, that seems to be the idea. It illustrates the topic well. Gratuity may be in the eye of the beholder, but it doesnt violate policy and has the clear support of consensus. 67.34.105.65 02:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep until proven guilty of copyright violation. Although lacking professional quality, the photo obviously illustrates fellatio. Replacing it with a drawing would be counterproductive for Wikipedia as a source of unbiased information (free from restrictions based on religious values or suchlike). Libido 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. There are countless topics that could be illustrated sufficiently with a drawing and without a photograph, but that's no reason to delete the photographs! Powers 23:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, copyright concerns. As MadMax said, it would be easy to take it off any porn site and the uploader has no credible history. There is also no confirmation that the girl is over 18 (required by law in the US). / Fred J 01:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Fellatio1.jpg&oldid=76295187"