Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Keeani Lei 6.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Keeani Lei 6.jpg

[edit]

This is explicit porn --Tognopop 15:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As long as there is no enourmous collection of it, even explicit porn can have an encyclopedic purpose. Garion96 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The picture illustrates the subject of a wikipedia article. If that article is deleted (which seems very possible) we can delete this. But, as long as Wikipedia article exists. and the images illustrate what the subject is notable for, and nobody's challenging the legitimacy of the license, than this image stays. We're not censored. --Rob 03:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is because we are not censored that we have to admit everything ? In case yes, why don't we have hard porn scenes ? There is not interest of explicit porn for any Wikimedia project. Tognopop 10:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we don't have to use everything. If Keeani Lei was notable for any reason unrelated to porn, then this image would be inappropriate. However, this image illustrates her doing what she does. We want pictures of boxers boxing, even though we'ld normally discourage people from filming violence and submitting it. Commons is a "servant project". It serves various WikiMedia projects, including Wikipedia. Wikipedia(en at least) has opted to cover a lot of pornography related topics. That coverage requires in many cases text and images of an adult nature. If Keeani Lei's career in pornography isn't worthy of coverage (text and image) it should be deleted from Wikipedia, and then deleted from here, in that order. --Rob 02:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if Keeani Lei were notable because she is a specialist in double penetration we should show her practising such sex ? When somebody comes on any Wikimedia Project this implies that he is not looking for sex. So we do not have to answer to such a need. Furthermore why this can't be applied for the others Wikimedia Projects ? Tognopop 22:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because they are other projects. Also please note that US law (which is referred to on that page) is not valid all over the world; it seems you are French, so I would assume you should know that. --Rosenzweig 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know that but we need rules here, and we could be inspired from en.wp, we have to do better that just "we show this because she does it". In the french version we have something similar and this without reference to laws. Perhaps we may write something here on Commons, because french and english point of view don't seems absurd even for all the Projects. And writing guidelines may this kind of discussion not happen anymore. Tognopop 00:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I agree that Commons should not be censored. But that does not mean that explicit content like this must be kept without questioning its usabilty. Will this image ever be usable on any Wikimedia project? It's obviously not usable in a serious encyclopedic article and IMHO only released by the copyright holder to promote this model. --88.134.232.95 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep just about As with Garion96 we are an encyclopedia but I still have difficulties with it.  CommentWhat's next; does one limit to one example per subject, followed quickly by nominations for image of the subject!! Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 12:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's time to add some "beware of explicit nudity" sort of thing that could help parent's protection softwares... Moreover it's not what I call explicit porn. Just explicit nudity, not more shocking than Courbet's Origine du monde (1866!) --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-) 12:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Actually, it is not used to illustrate its subject in an article. Technically, it is prohibited from use by its listing at en:MediaWiki:Bad image list with no exception. Socially, it is prohibited from use by the third guideline at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Structure: "images should not be explicit in nature. Pictures with the genitals, bust, or buttocks of the person exposed should not be posted". While a WikiProject guideline to its members does not have the force of a community guideline or policy, it is very unlikely that this image will ever be used to illustrate en:Keeani Lei or any other en wiki article. - BanyanTree 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On further thought, if I can't think of how this will ever be used, and if there is an ounce to truth to WikiProject Pornography's assertion that images of this sort are at risk of prompting 2257, I should be for deletion. - BanyanTree 05:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! Not because of porn (I like porn), but it is obviously here for commercial purpose! —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.178.14.116 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18. Okt. 2007
  • Keep Perhaps some other wikimedia project might be able to use it in an appropriate context (an article on pornography perhaps), aside from en.wp? If not now, then perhaps later. We don't have too many porn images with an OTRS permission. --Rosenzweig 23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Free pr0n? Don't look a gift image in the _ _ _ _. I can think of plenty of uses for this image, and some of them even have nothing to do with my right hand. OK, seriously (hence the name), this could be used to illustrate articles on pornography, grooming practices, or even (cropped) girl parts, aside from the subject herself. A trusted user went to the trouble of clearing permissions for this image. What sort of message are we sending to him if we say "thanks but no thanks". This image is no more spamulous that an image of a singer singing or a batsman batting. Even though it is currently on the badimage list, exceptions can be requested. I know en.w is not censored; hopefully, that applies to the epicenter of free media that is Commons as well. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This permission is for advertisement. Do you have rewared, on the file's description, the two links directly on his commercial website ? Tognopop 21:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the permission is for the release of the photo under the GFDL license. That it is perhaps advertisement is irrelevant. Commons has plenty of publicity images released by the webmaster or the person in question her/himself. The only difference with this one that it is nudity. Garion96 16:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you think that we should let webmasters using Commons for publicity ? Tognopop 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a nonsense argument. Are you going to nominate Image:Alina Ibragimova.jpg for deletion because it was released by the person in question. Are you going to nominate Image:Paul Haslinger.JPG because it was released by the webmaster/management of that person? Garion96 20:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No of course but this case is particular. It seems like "Do you want to see more pictures of me ? Come on my commercial website and pay for it, you just have to click on the link below!" Tognopop 22:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One one of the images above there is a link to the offical Haslinger site. On there is an advertisement for his new album. Seems the same to me. That it might be advertisement is not a good reason for deletion, the other reasons are perhaps (although I don't agree with them). Garion96 22:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This two pictures are not comparable. The Haslinger one can't seems to say "look how smart I am, come on my website to buy my music". If there were an extract of a song of this man and directly bellow two links to buy the entire song, I would believe that it is clearly advertisment. The case of Keeani is much more explicit, his entire body seems to say "come on ! (and pay)". Tognopop 17:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are getting more ridiculous all the time. You are only describing what you associate with the picture. This it not part of any spam campaign, as you seem to think, the image is here because the uploader (Videmus Omnia) requested some images and got them, among them this. He mentions the source of the pictures, and I can't see anything incorrect in that. Quite on the contrary, it is commendable to state your sources. --Rosenzweig 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Your arguments are getting more ridiculous all the time" => personal attacks, please avoid. Do you really think that is a subjective point of view saying that this picture is like an invitation ? This is not because Videmus Omnia has requested some images and mentions the source that it can't be removed from Commons, isn't it ? Tognopop 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not attack you, I simply called your arguments “more ridiculous all the time”. The first argument was “This is explicit porn”, now we are at "Do you want to see more pictures of me ? Come on my commercial website and pay for it, you just have to click on the link below!" I explicitly rebut your notion of the image being a case of “webmasters using Commons for publicity” by telling that it was uploaded by a user who asked for some pictures with permission, got them and uploaded them while mentioning his source, and the next argument is that this fact is no obstacle to deletion! (At least that's what I think you meant, your English is a bit hard to understand sometimes). What will come next? To me this seems to be a case of argument after argument being produced after the previous ones were rebutted, the only goal being the deletion. --Rosenzweig 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I thought that your arguments were ridiculous I won't tell you because it cannot brings something positive to the debate and it may hurt you. I simply give "This is explicit porn" because I thought that this image will be deleted very quickly without need of others arguments. It's not because this image have been uploaded by a user who asked for it that the webmaster not uses indirectly Commons for publicity. Probably Videmus Omnia thought that uploading this image and giving links was a very good thing to Commons. But now it serves this commercial website giving more visitors and so, with this, Commons is indirectly used for publicity. You didn't answer my question, "Do you really think that is a subjective point of view saying that this picture is like an invitation ?". "What will come next?" => please be less agressive. Tognopop 02:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the answer was obvious, but since it does not seem obvious to you, I'll spell it out: Yes, I do think that it is a subjective point of view saying that this picture is like an invitation. You're mistaking a source reference for spam. --Rosenzweig 11:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, according to my point of view it's obvious that picture is like an invitation. I didn't want to say that is spam, sorry for this mistake. Tognopop 15:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of full frontal nudity photos at Wikipedia might be looked at as pornographic. The photo in discussion is a full body shoot (unique feature compared to other photos of female genitals on Wiki!) of a nude women also showing her genitals. The fact that she is a porn actress is not relevant. Starburstdentrimer
  • Delete I see no purpose of this pic. If you're interested in porn, visit an appropriate site. Why have porn in wikipedia? There's plenty of it on the web already... Iaberis 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikimedia isn't a censor. Marcus Cyron 09:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the top of this discussion concerning censorship. Tognopop 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And now? You have your opinion and your way to look at these things. It seems, I have an other understanding of such things. Marcus Cyron 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should explain why you think your point of view is better. Maybe I'm wrong but if you don't tell me why I will still believe that I'm right. Tognopop 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikimedia isn't a porn site. I highly doubt a photo of this nature will ever get used in a Wikipedia article. At some point you have to consider where to draw the line. We should draw the line at porn (i.e. images specifically created for the purposes of sexual arousal, not education). 82.35.167.93 02:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see Marcus Cyron. --S[1] 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm all for porn, but educational value really isn't there, porn can be described in an article less graphically and promotionally (for want of a better word) --Pumpmeup 03:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Commons is not Wikipedia. For me, Commons should be independent, and everybody should be able to find free contents here without having to pass by Wikipedia. Keeani Lei has two articles (English and Spanish) concerning her. She is thus famous and any photo of her is thus important. Because she is a pornstar, it's normal to have this kind of photo. Okki 07:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC) ps: sorry for my really poor english[reply]
    •  Comment - correct. Not everything on Commons should be seen through the lense of Wikipedia. This is a repository of free images. If I want to use an explicit erotic image in a work of mine, why shouldn't I be allowed to get it from here? Ingolfson 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Mnts 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It's not pornographic but explicit erotic. Like this one. --86.66.173.176 07:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a) this image is not illegal in any sense I can see, and b) schools of thought which are willing to ban something such as this because its on the FRINGE of being problematic to SOME - I consider them contrary to the whole purpose of the Wikimedia project. Ingolfson 19:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment - Wikimedia does not want to offend (which is really, a companion rule for is not censored). However, not only is the "not censored", if in balance, more important (because SOMEBODY is always going to be offended - there are lots of people who object to images of woman's uncovered faces!), this image is also unlikely to be seen by accident, and is likely harder to stumble upon porn on Google. Therefore, any offense taken is mostly self-wrought. Ingolfson 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm offended by the promotion of guilt, shame and ignorance. --Simonxag 20:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I agree that Wikipedia's policies preclude the use of this image in Wikipedia at the moment, Commons does not exist only to serve Wikipedia. It is not too difficult to imagine something on Wikibooks that might want to use this, and more broadly it may be of use to the rest of the free-content world. Since it may be useful to Wikimedia projects, and the license is good, we should keep it. --Sopoforic 11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I am about to close this as a keep, per the majority of the votes and lack of any particular Commons guideline which would require deletion. For those who think Commons needs clearer standards regarding images which may be considered pornographic, Commons talk:Project scope and Commons talk:Nudity may be useful places for further discussion. -- Infrogmation 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -- Infrogmation 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Keeani_Lei_6.jpg

[edit]

Inappropriate for public viewing. 66.151.148.225 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very speedy question. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:Keeani_Lei_6.jpg

[edit]

pornography 192.55.52.1 01:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Keeani_Lei_6.jpg&oldid=165644697"