Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As of March 28 2005, this debate is going on at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#March_22

[edit] Round 3 (March 12)

    • It's survived IfD before. Here we go again. Clearly encyclopedic as it illustrates the sexual practise quite clearly. Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep: survived IfD a month ago (~19 Jan 2005 I believe ... see Image_talk:Autofellatio.jpg#Images_and_media_for_deletion_vote). The article is autofellatio, the picture shows autofellatio, and the picture is linked from the article using the {{linkimage}} template. As such, you will never see this image unless you want to – it won't even ever come up on Random Page. For those who are not offended by it, I think it's quite clear that it adds to the article. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Artless and tasteless, this image is cropped from a porn site. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia, whether it's inline or linked. I have no problem with the drawing or a more tasteful photo. Rhobite 07:27, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe Cantus took this to Copyvio and insufficient evidence was found to delete it. I think a photo depicting the subject of the article in question is quite encyclopedic. How, exactly, could it be more tasteful? TIMBO (T A L K) 07:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I guess a debate is inevitable. I can't imagine how this isn't a copyright violation. Cantus found it on a porn site! Are we suggesting that the user who uploaded this picture (and claims he is the creator) took a whole series of these pictures and sold them to a porn site? It's possible, but unlikely. The only justification for using this is fair use, and fair use images should be discouraged where it's possible. Since you asked: As a photographer, from a technical and artistic standpoint, I think this image is awful. The photoshopped black background, the strained look on the guy's face, the color balance. Yes, it's possible to have artful and even tasteful porn. This isn't it. Rhobite 07:55, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
          • The statement that Cantus found this picture on a porn site is unequivocally false. The rest of your comment seems to be an esthetic critique of the picture. Speaking purely as an unsophisticated viewer, the picture appears to me to illustrate the act well. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't understand this. Didn't he link to the whole series of images on a porn site? How could it possibly not be a copyvio? Rhobite 15:12, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I see nothing wrong with it. --Carnildo 07:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-12 09:06 Z
    • Keep. WP:POINT - David Gerard 14:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete for the simple fact that we don't own it, and it's a copyvio. – ClockworkSoul 14:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Autokeep unless it can be proven that this is somehow a copyvio. IANAL, but even if this is a derivative from a porn site fair use may apply. —RaD Man (talk) 18:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Round 4 (March 22)

  • On the French Wikipedia a mad person has tried many times to redirect several pages (including my User Talk on fr-wikipedia) to this image. That's no good publicity for Wikipedia, so remove please... - [[User:Pabix|Pabix ܀.]] 21:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not believe "vandalism" is a valid reason for image deletion - simply keep an eye on what links to it. It remains encyclopaedic and informative - there are many other images vandals may use if this is deleted --Oldak Quill 22:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no encyclopedic potential -- indeed, no redeeming value at all ➥the Epopt 21:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How is the image any more or less encyclopaedic than an image of a forest? It demonstrates a concept, and may be accessed by clicking the link. --Oldak Quill 22:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sinistro 21:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Has gone through IfD and survived, and strictly speaking should go back through there. Useful image, at least demonstrates that autofellatio is possible, and may have a use in that context. However, it is also abuseful, as the numerous incidences of vandalism involved using this image will demonstrate. The risk outweighs any benefit we can gain with this image. Chris 22:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you think we will achieve anything by allowing vandals to win in terms of content? We simply have to keep our eye on it and ensure nothing links to it that shouldn't be. --Oldak Quill 22:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This doesn't belong here; it belongs on IfD—where it has apparently already survived. If we start deleting images (or redirects, or templates) through VfD, then we encourage editors unhappy with RfD or TfD outcomes to 'forum shop' until they can get the answer that they want. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The following comment placed on a duplicate fo this vote, copied here. Chris 22:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This image is already listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Since images are inappropiate on VfD, and discussing this in multiple places at once is counterproductive, I suggest further comment be made there instead. —Korath (Talk) 22:09, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Invalid listing. Not only should it be on the ifd page, but the vote there has already been held, and there was no consensus to delete. RickK 00:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Invalid Listing. This image has graced IfD with it's presence perhaps 4 times in the last month or two, from overzalous deletionists and morally offended editors. As RickK observes, there was no consensus to delete. I remind everyone here that there are some explicit pictures at penis and many other places that might offend people in the improper context. What's more, a vandal can upload any picture to wikipedia, or even to any language of wikipedia and then do the old inter-inter-wiki linking trick. The image is not the problem - one stupid asshole vandalizing wikipedia is the problem. I suspect he or she is doing this exactly to elicit this response, since the picture alone did not garner the hysterically offended response that he or she assumed it would. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. sorry for the strong language, but it really irks me that the anti–offensive-image onslought persists. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand your frustration, having been irked when things come up for deletion repeatedly before. That said, it does seem from the votes so far that there's been a substantial change in the consensus, so this may not be inappropriate. Snowspinner 14:38, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT it doesn't look like Auto-Fellatio, looks like an auto-facial, as he's jerking off. 132.205.15.43 01:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Wrong Page'. Please list this on Images for Deletion instead. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely unnecessary Trampled 01:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you explain why you think it is unnecessary? It is illustrative and encyclopaedic. --Oldak Quill 22:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Chris. I have no objection to this image used in the appropriate article, but it is doing more harm than good on Wikipedia because of vandalism. If we could have a software change which prevents a suitably tagged image from appearing inline or being redirected to, then I'd change my vote, assuming no copyright violation. As far as the vandals using other images if this is deleted: pictures of genitalia out of context are less offensive than this is out of context.-gadfium 02:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's a matter of opinion, and the vandal could upload this picture again him/herself if (s)he wanted to use it again in vandalism. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, votes always are a matter of opinion. If reuploaded, the image could be deleted immediately upon detection. There are far more offensive images that vandals could upload, I'm sure (and occasionally they do). Most of the time, they use images already available.-gadfium 04:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Uh... couldn't a user still reupload it and vandalise with it if we vote to delete it? In fact, a user may upload any image of any "level of offensiveness" and vandalise with it. Do you have any more valid justification for your vote? --Oldak Quill 22:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary. Megan1967 05:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I fail to understand how this is unnecessary... it is illustrative and encyclopaedic? --Oldak Quill 22:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 06:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I will transfer this talk to Images for Deletion. Sorry ! Pabix.
  • Delete – Only reason to have this is for shock value. – ClockworkSoul 06:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well... that and to illustrate the article "auto-fellatio". The fact that you find auto-fellatio and images of it "shocking" it does not mean that the images can ONLY be shocking. --Oldak Quill 22:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If I were a 14-year old boy who had read something disturbing or titillating about autofellatio, and decided to check out this resource that claimed to be a free collection of all human knowledge, I would be glad to find a picture that made clear just what that disturbing reference was talking about, cuz sometimes one .jpg is worth a kilobyte of text. If I were accessing the site through the Internet (which, by definition, I would be), I wouldn't be surfing WikiPedia for long dong porn. There are many better sites for that. I ("I" BradGad (Talk) 06:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) the writer of this post; not the hypothetical "I" kid described so far) think that the people who would look up this article for the right reasons (and there are valid reasons) would benefit from this image. I think that the people who would look it up for the wrong reasons would go somewhere else. (I do realize that people like Public Librarians trying to impose filter rules are faced with special challenges, but I still stand by my position.) I think this image has a valid place on WikiPedia.
  • But would you like to see your talk page redirected to this image ? I think there is already a drawing on the page, this photo is unadequate on an encyclopedia where young people could go, and particularly when it is used mostly for vandalism. Pabix ܀. 10:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think anyone would, but not a valid reason to delete. Further, since when should "young people" not see sexual acts. If you have children and do not wish them to follow their curiosity monitor them while they are online - we, Wikipedia contributors, are not nannys. --Oldak Quill 22:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact, no one would probably want their talk page redirected to any image whatsoever. Sam Hocevar 22:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ick. No, I wouldn't, Pabix. Guess I didn't read/remember the whole narrative. BradGad (Talk) 14:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete already. if it snuck through vfd before, that was because the vote was not properly advertised. there is no reason to host this image, it is a vandal-magnet. Link to external porn sites from Autofellatio, for all I care. Add to that its "dubious" (to put it gently) copyright status to make for a very clear case. dab (ᛏ) 08:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not "properly advertised" has never been a reason to resubmit an article to VfD before - why should it be relevent now? --Oldak Quill 22:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The drawing does an adequate job, and if don't link to the picture on the page directly, we might as well put it under external links. There's copyright issues and I can't see any additional value the drawing doesn't have. Mgm|(talk) 09:19, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • An illustration is not the same as a photograph - further, "duplicate content" in items of media is not a valid reason for deletion. I concede that copyright concerns are valid. --Oldak Quill 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Exactly what Mgm said. Filiocht 09:54, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic image. Not presently used in any articles, except for vandalism. --BM 11:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It is presently linked to by the auto-fellatio article - the reason it is not included is due to an intervention by Jimbo. Vandalism is not a valid justification for deletion. --Oldak Quill 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a vandal magnet. -- Arwel 13:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Vandalism has never been an accepted reason to delete before - we have not deleted images of clitoris or penis because of it. I believe these had higher levels of vandalism when in limelight anyway, which this picture currently is. --Oldak Quill 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A porn magazine may need to show such things, but an encyclopedia can just describe them. It has been used to spam my user page. Wincoote 13:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Could one not similarly argue that images of forests are suitable for the "National Geographic" but not an encyclopedia which may just describe it? Do you not find it curious that many peoples pages are redirecting to it - indicating a single user or group of users being a purpetrator. We should not bow to vandals. --Oldak Quill 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a repository of pornography. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not a repository, but a repository is not one encyclopedic image. --Oldak Quill 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this is removed the vandals will just substitute other sexually oriented pictures. I don't want mischievous kids to dictate what we can and cannot have on Wikipedia. The image is appropriate to the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - probable copyvio. Snowspinner 14:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I haven't really been involved in this before, although I'm aware of the history. I'm not a deletionist, and I am certainly not a prude. However, I don't believe images such as this are appropriate for an encyclopedia. If the delete passes, I believe any recreations may qualify for a speedy delete as a recreation of deleted content. --Deathphoenix 14:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why is this image not appropriate for an encyclopedia? It is demonstrating a valid sexual act, the fact that the act is marginal does not deem it "amoral", "unnatural" or "unsuitable" for wider public viewing. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlike Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg, our previous contender for "Wikipedia-hosted image most often used in vandalism", this is overtly and intentionally pornographic, is of little encyclopedic value, and very similar images can be linked externally. —Korath (Talk) 14:47, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • How is it "overtly and intentionally pornographic"? It is encyclopaedic in that it visually demonstrates a sexual act. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vandal magnet. Not used in any article. jni 14:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Vandal magnetism is not a valid justification for deletion - it has not been before (see penis and clitoris) and is only occuring due to the image being in the limelight. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Nunh-huh 16:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rhobite 16:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I know there's a history here, but: this is almost unequivocally a copyvio. I refuse to believe there's still a debate about this. This is a recognizable gay porn actor, so unless he posted it himself (which is unlikely), it has to be scanned from a porno mag or copped from a website. Just because it's not actually the same image as the one somebody found on the splash page of an autofellatio porn site doesn't mean it's not copyvio -- for one thing, it's indisputably the same person. The fact is that one can upload absolutely anything and tag it as GFDL; calling it so doesn't automatically make it true. It's so overwhelmingly likely to be a copyvio that the burden of proof is on the "creator" to prove that it's not, not on anyone to prove that it is. Delete, delete, delete. Not because it's offensive, but because it has to be considered copyvio unless proven otherwise. Not vice versa. Bearcat 16:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I sat out the previous votes, but the recent vandal spree convinced me. - BanyanTree 16:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This vandal spree is due to the images position in the limelight - we should not concede content to a handful of vandals who circumvent policy. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Bearcat. grendel|khan 16:57, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just don't see the merit of including an image of suspect provenance which attracts vandals like flies when a drawing can provide all the explanation one might need without any of the offence one might take. If you say an image like this is necessary to illustrate the article, well, you might as well say a graphic photo of a murder victim is necessary to illustrate an article on murder. Worldtraveller 17:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why is the photograph more offensive than the illustration? Murder is not the same as a sexual act? First of all murder is inconsentual and inclusion of photos infringes on the family's privacy. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As we do not have any source for it we should assume it is (a) doctored, (b) a copy-vio (c) porn (the face tells that). This is apparently a known porn star; by ignoring the obvious copyvio issues the reputation of wikipedia as being serious about removing copyvio's is being trashed; people will assume copyvio is unimportant. I think the auto-fellation people need to check this article is not doctored. I always thought such an act was impossible and this photo does not convince me otherwise (haven't read the article). This was dumpedc on my user page and now sits on my hard disc which may be illegal here in Honduras. I avoid ALL porn sites, not only for lack of interest but because I do not want images on my hard disc. now some psychopath has trashed this, and with a probable copyvio porn image already at wikipedia. I feel violated by this; like someone committing an unwanted sexual act against me. I really believe the pro lobby muxt both prove it is not copyvio and give some suggestions of how to stop the very serious vandalism that this image is creating. A very angry --SqueakBox 17:10, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This image is far more trouble than it's worth. In addition to shocking the vast majority of readers, it's almost certainly a copyvio. A less offensive image can provide the same amount of information in a more encyclopedic manner. Carbonite | Talk 17:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Illustrations are inherently less encyclopaedic than photographs - why do you assume it is "shocking" to the majority of readers and how is this "shock" significant enough to warrant deletion. Keep in mind that a user has to actively click a link to see it. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable copyvio. —Xezbeth 17:35, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. CryptoDerk 18:09, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with everything Bearcat and Carbonite said on this. Jonathunder 18:15, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • Comment: The notion that this image is somehow unencyclopaedic is completely, utterly, indescriably ridiculous. IDIOTIC. The image is information and is QUITE appropriate for the article. That said I have concerns about its copyright status, so I'm obliged to vote to Delete. However, I'm very concerned about the rise of censorship here. I don't see a problem at ALL with having an image in Autofellatio, or even Goatse.cx. Our job here is to present information, be it explicit or nay. This image, while explicit and even offensive to some, is INFORMATION. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What about images of headless hostages, then, from ogrish.com and similar? Explicit, disturbing, but as appropriate and informative as this one. There is nothing to be gained by having an offensive (to many) image where a drawing will be every bit as encyclopaedic and far less offensive. Worldtraveller 18:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with such images. There is plenty to be gained. A drawing cannot be as informative. In this case, though, if a copyright-free image can't be found, a drawing will suffice. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • let me just say: [1]. if you consider this a deletionist attitude, I cannot help you. Every image is "information", that's a very trivial fact, and shouldn't prevent us from making a judgement. dab (ᛏ) 20:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't say anything about deletionism; only that the notion that the image is somehow unencyclopaedic is wholly ridiculous. 20:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if it isn't a copyvio. --Carnildo 18:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Bearcat and Carbonite said. Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Duk 19:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious copyright violation unless proven otherwise (the idea that it isn't is truly wholly ridiculous) and really doesn't add anything ("So THAT'S how someone sucks his own dick! I'm glad that picture was able to show me!"). --Calton | Talk 21:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There are no photos on List of sex positions or similar articles. This is unnecessary and horrid. I'm not even certain it's accurate...
Smoddy (tgeck) 21:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not entirely aware of what you mean by "unnecessary and horrid" and how this is bad enough to warrent censorship? How is it not accurate? --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable copyvio. --cesarb 21:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please pretend I said something mildly amusing (that's all I got!). El_C 21:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not because it could be offensive, which is fine, but because it's a bad demonstration of the supposed "technique." Demi T/C 21:54, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
    • Surely it is better to have a photo than none at all? We may get a better photo of the technique eventually to replace it. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if it's a copyvio. Otherwise, keep until a better illustration can be found. Sam Hocevar 22:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pornography. You can't expect schools and so to start using Wikipedia with such vileness like this. Hedley 22:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Christian fundamentalist schools may block Wikipedia due to evolution articles - this does not mean we need remove them. Wikipedia MUST not be influenced, in terms of content, by external factors. We provide information and the user should decide what to do with it. Signficiantly, this image is not in the article but must be accessed by clicking a link. If a user has gone to the article they are giving consent by clicking. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Invalid listing and keep - it is imperative that we do not allow our values to interfere with content, this is completely unacceptable. The image is currently NOT inline, surely this is enough to satisfy the "save the children" lobby? --Oldak Quill 22:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The image plainly adds to the article more than a drawing. If you doubt that, read some of the votes above. There are suspicions that the image was digitally altered, and expressions of amazement that the act is possible. A drawing doesn't do anything to prove the feasibility of the act. I also don't buy the "it could be used in vandalism" for a second. Wikipedia is not vandalism-resistant because it's hard to vandalize it, it's vandalism-resistant because people remove vandalism as quickly as it is added. The only defensible grounds for deletion I see are its questionable copyright status. However, as it has not been demonstrated that the image is a copyright violation and the image would be hard to replace, I do not find that argument enough to deserve deletion. LizardWizard 23:22, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and replace with another photo of the same act. This one is almost certainly a copyvio. Meelar (talk) 01:31, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)