Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg

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:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg

Not educationally useful (Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.) SaschaHolzhauer (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if there could be hypothetical potential education value in it showing a nude human, for example by adding to the large collection of photographs that show the diversity of human bodies and/or genitalia (or e.g. for potential usefulness in an article about humorous Internet porn etc). It's not "self-created" however, it was created by a Flickr user and then uploaded to here.

In any case: the file description and the way it's included in the search engine results is a problem. It currently shows up (irrelevant, surprising, NSFW, distracting, useless) when searching for boomer for example and the description describes this meme instead of the picture, either or both of that should be changed at some point in some way.

Prototyperspective (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion requester is registered in Wikipedia since 2013 but was only less than 50 total edits in all projects and only 8 edits in Commons, all made today.

Besides this dozens of dr all closed has kept, has been discussed to death (including the descriptions) in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev and there is even more as this was also debated to death in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology after some users hijacked the 2019 WikiConference North America to push and from that discussion ot was again established that this image are in clear scope. As was before debated n 2013 when an administrator run amok with the deletions out of process and this images were undeleted and scope was debated in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Ignoring willfully all this previous discussions to open another dr with the same old tired arguments is, at the simplest level, just plain wrong. Tm (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for programming topics and got - basically porn. There is absolutely no educational value in these photographs. It's basically a handful of people promoting a niche subject of nude photography. Even wikimedia commons has a responsibility for young people. The main arguments brought forward to keep the pictures are: "Commons is not censored", (Why do we have delete requests at all then?), and "the file is part of a series" (which is not an argument at all if the entire series is useless and harmful as in this case). Arguments don't become better if they're repeated dozens of times! Besides, I don't ignore willfully previous discussions, I just can't afford reading it all but still care about my and other children who come across harmful content when they expect it least. SaschaHolzhauer (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is not porn. Second the descriptions have been debated to death. Third, 30 deletion requests and several discussions prove that your assertion that "There is absolutely no educational value in these photographs" is just that an argument several times rejected. Fourth "Commons is not censored" and deletion requests is not related with censorship.

And you talking about children "basically a handful of people promoting a" world view and moral dogma. It is the classic "Think of the children logical fallacy" and "form of obsession over the concept of purity" coming from a puritan views and obsession with a that tries to appeal to emotions and not reason to make an moral panic.

Also you also talk specifically of your children and as you are their parent it is your responsability to educate and care about them and not to try or pretend to try to unload them into others under false moralistic arguments (i.e. delete this file to "care about my and other children" under the false "Will someone please think of the children?" à la Helen Lovejoy). Tm (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely very clearly is porn. It does not matter if it has been debated to death which I doubt, the descriptions are not describing the image. Concerning children, he stated "Even wikimedia commons has a responsibility for young people", and you did not address his concerns, instead you seem to say children don't use WMC and just name-call an unrelated fallacy (which he did not commit).

There a very small group of organized people who see educational value in this series in its entirety and there are many often-inexperienced people coming here separately to make deletion requests for this images part of this series, usually failing to raise the realistic educational value policy. He did not make an appeal to emotion, he made a (multiple actually) reasonable point which you are in denial of. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep with a vengeance. Not this crap again. Dronebogus (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]