Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gay anal sex.jpg

< Commons:Deletion requests
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:Gay anal sex.jpg

edit

Bad quality picture, selfie. Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NSFW (obviously)
 Keep clearly shows.. well.. what the filename said, while not perfectly sharp it's properly framed. Now, I don't really want to go and see if Commons already has similarly properly framed images of this that are sharper. Because.. do I have to explain that? If it turns out we have plenty of similar and properly licensed but sharper images, I may reconsider. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I had doubts when I uploaded this image that I found on Flickr. I do agree with Patrick Rogel that the image is blurry, thus why my doubts. The intention was adding a different angle. But on a second thought, not much can be added with this image. I believe that Alexis Jazz (sorry) was talking about a photo like this other image.--Jim Bangs (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)  Keep Since everyone sees this image useful.--Jim Bangs (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Bangs: that's a better photo, but not properly licensed beyond doubt. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a closer look and this one is. High resolution (not found on the web. yes, not fully sharp, but not downscaled), EXIF, date in EXIF checks out with the upload date on Flickr (uploaded the next day), Flickr pro account, about page of the Flickr user doesn't raise any suspicion either (openly gay). I prefer a somewhat blurry image with virtually no doubt it was published and licensed with consent over a super-sharp but questionable image any day. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep While it is true that the quality can be better, the question that should be asked is: Is it useful for an educational purpose. The answer is yes, because the quality does not prevent one from using it. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This image was also included in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jim Bangs (nomination for all files uploaded by Jim Bangs). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It has educational value, and as Alexis Jazz says, no doubt about it being properly licensed. Abzeronow (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per discussion. Strakhov (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2018 (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.

File:Gay anal sex.jpg

edit

Obscenity Walther16 (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep per previous discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It used to be that when somebody nominated a file for deletion, when it was already kept before they were advised to read the prevous discussion. Has this feature been disabled? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gone Postal: Certainly this feature was active within the last month or so, and not only refers to previous nominations of the file, but any deletion discussion that links to the file being nominated. Of course, some users can’t (or won’t) read these warnings. Brianjd (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Speedy keep There was a previous DR for this file specifically, which links to a mass DR that also includes this file. Both DRs were closed as keep. Brianjd (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the previous DR I understand two things: 1. The quality is law and we have better pics for the same. 2. It has "educational value". As long as a conclusive expert opinion is not given on what this picture has as per educational value that the other files cannot satisfy, my vote (opinion) is delete. I think the anti-porn DR reflection is almost as strong as the deletion crusaders. We must stop "giving reactions" and look at the images before rejecting or defending them. (An admin told me so, m/l. :) --E4024 (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Saying "we have better pics" is meaningless unless we clarify what we mean by better. I would consider "better" to mean "more fitting for a specific educatinally purpose". So we need to think of educational purposes and find better images. But in all honesty I do not want to go through all the images and consider different educational useage and which one is better. The point is that we do not demand this for anything other than "Gay Anal Sex". Please see how many images of houses we have, why do we have so many houses? We can just have one house and then assume that all the other houses are the same. Why do we have so many birds? They are also all the same, and we can just find a good image and delete all the rest, right? In other words this is dishonest to start this deletion, and it is also dishonest to say "We have a better image" unless you specify the criteria. In both cases as soon as you are proven wrong, you simply repeat and shift the goal post. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I have not started the DR and only used words from the previous discussion I do not blame you for trying to insinuate "dishonesty" towards a very honest person. However I have noted your name in my list of users to avoid interaction, and I have to inform this to you before that list is activated in your case. Before going away, I kindly request you to try not to insult people who are working voluntarily here. Thanks for not directing any words to me again, ever, anywhere. E4024 (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed this DR with the comment “No valid reason for deletion.” But @E4024 reverted it with the edit summary “No CONSENSUS. LET AN ADMIN CLOSE IT.” Let me respond to this briefly:
    1. Consensus. Of course there is consensus. There were no votes other than some “keep” votes and @E4024’s “delete” vote; there were no good arguments for deletion, remembering that this file has survived two previous DRs.
    2. Closure by non-admins. Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions:
      Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial.
    I believe I have a good understanding of the process and this closure is not controversial. (By the way, @E4024 did suggest in another DR that I become an admin to help clear the backlog of admin tasks. Perhaps they were just being sarcastic.)
There you have it. Another bunch of crap that our overworked admins have to deal with. Brianjd (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mdaniels5757: I see that you have closed similar DRs and have not contributed to this one (so you could be an independent voice here); could you take a look at this one? Brianjd (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Low quality, unused image of questionable education value. Simply saying it could be used doesn't place it automatically within scope:
An image does not magically become useful by virtue of the argument that it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X, merely because X happens to be the subject of the photograph...For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in photography" does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs. The fact that an unused snapshot of your friend could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Photographic portraiture" does not mean that we should keep all photographs of unknown people. The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep low quality pornographic images...

Direct quote from Project Scope. AshFriday (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Comment If we had another better image, or were likely to have a better image, I would probably agree with you. I think you have significaantly misunderstood every keep vote here. I do not think that people argue that this photograph is impossible to replace, but rather that we have nothing to replace it with. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Survived previous DRs. No new substantial reasons for deletion given. @E4024, who reopened this DR last time I closed it, has not explained why this was necessary. Brianjd (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[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.

File:Gay anal sex.jpg

edit

Sexually explicit Wikan Boy 123 (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Speedy keep Not a deletion reason and already survived 2 deletion requests, so why waste time on it? I'm certainly not going to look at it. Just ignore sexually explicit images if you don't want to view them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per previous discussions, no new facts provided. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Gay_anal_sex.jpg&oldid=973472783"
  NODES
admin 8
Note 1
Project 1
USERS 2