Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexander Ahimsa - Silly Kids in Toronto - 14 Fucking in the Stairwell.jpeg

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.

"Fucking in Stairwell" photos

[edit]
Welcome, Wikipedians!
This deletion discussion is generating interest on Wikipedia. If you are a Wikipedian without much experience of Commons, your input here is welcome, but please be aware of Commons' policies, particularly deletion policy and project scope (criteria for inclusion). Note also that, like Wikipedia deletion discussions, Commons deletion discussions are not decided by voting. You may find Commons:For Wikipedians helpful as an introduction to Commons.

This picture has no encyclopedic value; it falls outside COM:SCOPE. Commons is not the uploader's personal porn repository (and if he's uploading it to prove a point, then it's failing). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep - easily the most useful doggy-style photos we have, in that it shows more than just genitalia. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, certainly unique in depiction for position discussion and multiple angular figure display. -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I notice you guys are reticent to delete these images on the basis that they're encyclopedic, and you've even given an encyclopedic article where they could be used. And yet, the images remain unused. If they're encyclopedic, then by all means add them. If, however, this is just someone treating Commons as their personal porn repository (will someone really gain any knowledge whatsoever of the subject, as opposed to the other more useful images in Category:Doggy style positions?), this should not be kept. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentThe Commons is a repository of a great deal of material, some currently used, most not. The function of the Commons is to provide a range of material for its projects, so that an editor needing an image will at least find something but preferably find a choice of images. It is not right that images are deleted for not being currently used. Such attitudes seem to be applied chiefly to our sexuality images, with images deleted as "unecyclopedic" when they are actually being used. --Simonxag (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If a non-sexual image is non-encyclopedic, I would nominate that too. Personally, I still see no non-encyclopedic value in it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll note I voted neutral on these particular images. I'm particularly worried about any criteria being applied to sexuality images that wouldn't be applied to other areas of life and knowledge.--Simonxag (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I've had a look at the source "Freedom Porn" site and loved its stated aims of being a repository of ethical sexually explicit material (safe sex, education etc.). I hope all my cynical skeptical misgivings are proved wrong. But the quality of these images is pretty poor. I tried improving them with the GIMP levels tool, but didn't feel the result was worth it. Maybe they're the best photos we have of the subject at the moment so OK. --Simonxag (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remain a bit skeptical. The current content is rubbish and not a condom is to be seen. The only half-decent source of usable sex education images on the internet remains the Wikimedia Commons. --Simonxag (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as per mattbuck. Handcuffed (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Favoring Delete because (a) the quality IS crap (shaky and somewhat blurry) and (b) because it doesn't show things which Cat:Doggy style positions would be lacking without them. In fact, even the griechen images are superior. "Because it's a photo" shouldn't be a major argument towards keeping. Drawings have the advantage that they can concentrate on the important aspects while leaving out the background noise and irrelevant details, so I'd rather delete the fucking photos (lol). After all, we have some good drawings in the cat:doggy (lol again, a deletion discussion that's really asking for puns) , and the photos will still be on a free repository even if Commons delete it. 217.251.158.249 07:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That it is a photo is most certainly an argument towards keep - we are here to provide an educational resource, and sometimes you want a photo, not a drawing. That the photos are elsewhere is also irrelevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete For (i) failing Commons:Photographs of identifiable people (consent of the woman for taking and publishing the photos is uncertain; the man appears to be the publisher - see source gallery / user page) and (ii) copyright. The photos in question are taken with a Canon Powershot (per EXIF), so someone is presumably holding the camera, and presumably they hold the copyright, not the person who's put the photos online, claiming to have said copyright. Rd232 (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Canon Powershot cameras, like most digital cameras, have self-timer capabilities. Put the camera on a shelf or something, start the timer, and get in position. Ten seconds later, the camera takes your picture. --Carnildo (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The woman is not identifiable in these photographs. She is however, identifiable in the other photographs in the original gallery, where she clearly doesn't seem to mind being a subject. Barring a request stating otherwise, I wouldn't particularly worry about this one. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cat:Doggy does not contain few photos. There are some showing only genitalia (I'd say we have enough of these now but not so many that we'd like to delete the worst) and quite some photos of ancient art (these are the most useful IMO, as they are not only useful for sex topics but art as well, so they are not too many), and two "Erotica LA" photos (which only prove that it works with different males, do we really need that?).
For educational purposes, Griechen31 and wiki-dstyle are best (imo at least, tell me if and why you disagree), and I'd think that for any purpose which could use one of the Toronto pics, Griechen31 or wiki-dstyle would be at least as useful, if not more.
IanMacm: please shut up about "encyclopedic".
Carnildo: Griechen31 is a better photo... 217.251.155.203 07:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not shut up about "encyclopedic" per Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. This is back to the bad old days of mediocre images being defended purely to make a point about the independence of Commons.--Ianmacm (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not about the independence of Commons, it's about whether images are useful or not to a wide audience. We're pretty inclusive here - if something could be useful, better to keep it than to lose it. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How will you make sure, these are not the same kind of images that were used to drive Amanda Todd into death? In fact, the girl is fully identifiable via the source website. Therefore  Delete. --Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully Handcuffed is not going to go down the road of uploading amateur porn stash images with dubious copyright and COM:PEOPLE status, as User talk:Max Rebo Band did on numerous occasions. Although the regulars on Commons will always rush to defend this type of action, these images should have a clear explanation of when and where they were taken, and the consent of all of the people involved.--Ianmacm (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title does give the fear of underage photos; nonetheless, "kids" can be used by some people for anyone in their 20s. I've read some commenters suggesting on Jimbo Wales' talk page that there could be a worry of someone being underage here, but I don't see that in this discussion. We should have clarity that these are definitely not underage participants, from people who are good at assessing these things. (Any convenience store clerks here?) Wnt (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everyone keeps calling this "sex in public", "doggy style", etc., but unless I was asleep in sex ed class ... isn't keeping your shorts on going just a little too far with the safe sex? Wnt (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, you must have been asleep when they explained how flies work. And during a great many other lessons as well, from my observation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this image?

[edit]

The present title doesn't sound very encyclopedic, and I imagine there are some people in this discussion who have justifiable trepidation about even opening a file with a name like "Alexander Ahimsa - Silly Kids in Toronto - 14 Fucking in the Stairwell" (I hate to admit, I delayed myself until seeing some reassuring commentary). The "14" is just an arbitrary photo number, normally discouraged by naming conventions. "Alexander Ahimsa" is just the user name of the uploader, which we don't normally use in file names either. "Kids" is, well, prone to misinterpretation, and "Fucking" is, as I say, apparently inaccurate. I'm not sure what you'd call it ... depends on what your, um, educational use is. Wnt (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind the DUCK-like similarities of User talk:Handcuffed and User talk:Max Rebo Band, could we have a confirmation that these users are not the same person?--Ianmacm (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No you may not. russavia (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a coincidence though:)--Ianmacm (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support if we keep the images. I was taken aback by the title. The "kids" are clearly not children and from other images on the source gallery don't look underage, but the title itself could be (and, we might say, is being) used by certain elements to support their censoring agenda. --Simonxag (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: These are being deleted under COM:PRP. These uploads are problematic due to the character involved downline -- I'm not going to waste time going into obvious details, but files which have this person involved should not be hosted on Commons, unless they are able to demonstrate they are complying with relevant U.S. (and country of origin) laws. russavia (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alexander_Ahimsa_-_Silly_Kids_in_Toronto_-_14_Fucking_in_the_Stairwell.jpeg&oldid=81590338"