File talk:Debbie Does Dallas.ogv
 | This file was nominated for deletion on 20 April 2020 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
| This file was nominated for deletion on 24 April 2017 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
| This file was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2015 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
| This file was nominated for deletion on 10 August 2016 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
| This file was nominated for deletion on 29 August 2016 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
| This file was nominated for deletion on 13 October 2016 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
| This file was nominated for deletion on 23 April 2017 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
| This file was nominated for deletion on 24 April 2017 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
| This file was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2022 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
Speedy kept, but[edit]
The deletion request d.d. 22 April 2017 was swept away by a "speedy keep" by (non-admin) user IP 80.221.152.17 on 23 April. That didn't give me time to check if the fact that at least one of the girls acting in this film (59:00 min. to 1:03:10 min.) is mentioned (twice) to be 16 years old, concurs with US law. The copyright issue doesn't seem clear either: I found a recent blog about another copyright issue with this film within a day, and wouldn't be surprised if more issues would pop up when looking at the matter more closely. Vysotsky (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Vysotsky: : I've relisted the deletion request. 80.221.152.17 00:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Legality of hardcore pornography on this platform is a "elephant in the room" real issue ~ the supply chain of the video file is troublesome yet legal at this point. I do question & seek an assist on hardcore pornography being available on Wikicommons ~ Wikimedia Foundation does work as a quirky workaround to information & media being available outside of official legal-psi channels. There are rarely discussed legal precedents - such as "Lateral evidence" - to taking down content in morally fuzzy zones, where due to the de facto question in itself of challenging any media, & owners & performers having little recourse vs oppurtunity to challenge prior behaivior & supply chains skizm is a crime in itself? Also the zeitgeist skizm that Wikicommons is not a feature film movie or pornography platform? Text mdnp (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Subtitles[edit]
Could someone add subtitles to it? It could be useful for people who are deaf or do not know English well (and I would not be surprised if the film has slang from the 70s, which would make it more difficult to understand for those who are not familiar with the language).
Maybe one of OpenSubtitles could be used as a base.--45.114.116.179 12:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Warning?[edit]
I suggest placing a warning in front of the video, e.g. "This video contains pornografic material" or "Warning: Sex scenes, 18+", or something similar. At least it would cause people like me who are not "18+" to be warned! Orlando of Arrakon "Kharakovh" (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose That could also attract people looking for this sort of thing, per Streisand Effect. It's never needed it, and never should. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)