Commons:Deletion requests/File:Debbie Does Dallas.ogg

la page affecte sur les comportements des enfants 41.137.57.129 16:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CENSORSHIP, a file is not deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be "child-friendly" or that it may cause offence to you or others. Betty Logan (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept: Non-sense DR (and vandalism). Commons is not censored. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

this media file is Not educationall or useful at all it's just a Pornographic video and should be removed Motawer.Dev (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it is pornographic does not come into it. If it were not useful then the media would not be used by the various Wikipedias and at least two language editions use the media file. Whether it is educational or not is subjective, but I would say hosting classic films that have fallen into the public domain is a credible use of the Commons. Betty Logan (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if anyone uploaded their amateur porn videos which might be free to use (public domain) commons will become a porn site, and yes hosting films that have fallen into the public domain is a good use of commons but only if the file has any educational value, and the reason commons exists is [Educational & Useful].--Motawer.Dev (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file is useful because it is used as a supporting material on articles about the film. Its presence and purpose on Commons is no different to that of File:Birth of a Nation (1915).webm and File:Night of the Living Dead (1968).webm. The only reason you have singled it out is because it is pornographic so I suggest you review COM:CENSORSHIP. Betty Logan (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for a supporting material a Trailer would be fairly enough File:Debbie Does Dallas, 1978, Edited Trailer.webm or File:Debbie Does Dallas, 1978, trailer.webm. As for my reasons, being pornographic is one but not all, I don't see any educational value that this file can add to the community or to the entire world, it's not an illustration of something or has any valuable info, even when considering the broad meaning of "Educational" the file does not provide knowledge nor it is instructional or informative. Motawer.Dev (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The educational value is fairly obvious: readers are able to view the work that is being discussed. In that regard it offers the same value as any other classic film in the public domain hosted on the Commons. Your agenda here is transparent: the fact the film is pornographic isn't "one of" your reasons, it is the sole reason. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me because I failed to understand your definition of "Educational", the way you describe it seems like a "reference", and if it's only that then a Trailer is super enough, while the meaning I'm referring to is 'Educational', if it was the MakeOf the film then I would say it has some educational value because it show how films of that kind are made. But this case is not the file's not informative nor instructional or even provide any useful knowledge and in addition to all this it's Pornographic -Motawer.Dev (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as much as I don't love this keep !vote being one of the few deletion discussions I've participated in on commons, this is clearly in scope as a well known film that is the subject of wikipedia articles, etc. No other policy-based reason to delete given. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per COM:INUSE on fr:Debbie_Does_Dallas. d:Q579826 lists 12 articles about this movie, that meet criteria of notability. The movie should be added to all that do not include it. --Jarekt (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - per COM:INUSE. Wikicology (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I strongly vote for delete, because if we kept them with reasons such COM:INUSE then no body will complain if someone wrote an article on Wikipedia about self cannibalism (or anything disgusting ) and by chance he found a video on commons of someone who cut his arm and ate it or chewed it while it's still connected, so he used the file to support his article, or an article about Self-Nutrition, and of course a file is always ready for the case showing someone eating his feces, or anything disgusting, Sorry for the words but you can imagine. And this case is not different from the above cases: the file is In Use and Commons is not Censored and lastly the file has no Licensing Issues. the point is if there is no law (yet) against killing someone on the moon, it does not mean you can, and if a file is intended for adults, then it should be uploaded where it belongs not here, I never imagined a world famous website intended to teach the world and spread knowledge to host such files, never in a million year, I wonder if people who donate to Wikimedia foundation know about the rules here !!. anyway sorry if crossed the grey line but I think I made myself clear. DroidPedia (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how seriously this comment should be taken, given its content and the fact that the user has 0 other edits, but Wikipedia is not censored, and neither is Commons. This is a film that has been the subject of a lot of coverage and is therefore an encyclopedic subject. That it contains explicit content is not reason to delete. Nor is what someone might upload in some ridiculous hypothetical. See COM:SCOPE and COM:NOT. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if I sound rude but you should take my comment very seriously, and about the 0 edits, I've made some edits at Wikipedia but only as visitor I never thought about creating an account as my contributions are very rare, but I created an account just to contribute to the deletion of this file (and similar ones) So I guess this is the only good thing came from it. I work as an IT specialist at the Municipality Public Library in which we provide aside from local books more than 80 computer with free and unlimited access to online libraries and useful websites such as e-mail services and of course can't forget all Wikimedia projects, even in summer we get some visitors and last Saturday I was doing some minor computer maintenance I saw a 13 maybe 12 years old kid watching something, the poor kid just run out of luck because when I turned my eyes toward the screen I saw it clearly (a *** and ***), the kid was playing nothing but this file, I was so angry and gave him a hell of a slap but the kid didn't cry instead he run away with a creepy smile on his face, I could only imagine what was in his little head maybe :"I found a treasure", and when I checked the browser history the kid entered wikimedia.org then commons and searched for "porn video" (I'm sure this is universal in all languages) and I'm also sure the kid did not understand what they said in the film because he barely know French (English has to wait for few other years), the kid didn't saw the film on Wikipedia or any other page but Commons, you get the idea right?. anyway I hope their parent don't sue me because I provided access to digital pornographic content to minor (which is forbidden not only in my country ) and here it's forbidden even for adults, even if it was unintentionally from my side but it is considered lack of responsibility and professionalism, Now I think I should start doing some filtering either search for files and block links one by one (which is really Stupid) or block commons.wikimedia.org (this is also a bad idea) or lastly ask people here reasonably, logically and politely to delete the files. I think this a very long comment so I will end it with: I remember reading about a law project in the USA (about 2003) to criminalize providing pornographic materials to juveniles with prior knowledge of their legal situation this goes also for websites based in the USA and that they should inform the visitor to not enter if he's under 18. DroidPedia (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DroidPedia, I understand it is a problem, but we can not help you with it. Commons is not censored and it does have a lot of material which might not be OK for minors to watch. And if they want to find porn I am dure they will find it, if not here than on other sites. Check out w:Porn 2.0 article for ideas of other sites to either block or ask to delete their content. --Jarekt (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jarekt, But the listed websites are intended for adults and they announce it publicly and loudly “we provide adults content only”, and most of them prompt the visitor with a message to either Leave as this is only an Adult place or to enter at his own risk, and some of them use age verification system, all this just to be on the brightest side of the law, and honestly I can't got to a porn site and ask them to erase all the data in their server's hard drives, though I wish if it could work, and for me I'm running a White listed Firewall, The world is blocked except for the good websites, and I had no issues with that list except for two cases, the first with Internet Archive and the last with Commons. the two cases use Educational flag and hide mines in their fields. Look I don't mean to be mean or anything, I really like the whole Idea of Wikimedia and I learned a lot from here, But I think it could be perfect if only they did something about this black spot, In fact I never saw any kind of signs or anything that say "shocking images" at least except for once, it was an image hidden by a sign and I don't even remember whether it said shocking image or pornographic media, and if only they prompt the visitor with a warning message, I wouldn't be angry. and again I think there is a law against providing pornographic materials to minors with prior knowledge of their age. --DroidPedia (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: COM:INUSE (used in fr wikipedia main namespace) and no consensus to delete the file. If there is evidence that the file has been hosted in violation of US law please contact the Wikimedia Foundation (in his role as hosting provider). --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore-Pornography, no educational purpose TünnesUndSchäl (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jarekt (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former nominations for a deletion argued that "Debbie Does Dallas" endanger the well-being of children. That is right, but it is not the a discussion I'd like to start, as far as I know the community's point of view. The primary problem is the law! As you know, the open access to pornography without any check of the legal age is highly forbidden. A second argument is the educational purpose: "Debbie Does Dallas" is a porn video, not a documentary. You could argue about the historical porns you could find here, but a full porn of 1978 hasn't any educational purpose! Some aruge, that the french wikipedia would use it. In fact, the open access of porn is higly forbidden in France. So first: there is a legal ban on porn in the internet, and second: there is no educational purpose. So why retain a porn on wikimedia commons? TünnesUndSchäl (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: Wikimedia projects are hosted in the United States, not France. Commons is not censored. There is no legal requirement in United States to check age for pornography as far as I'm aware: Such extraordinary claim needs extraordinary references to back it up. The work is in use at Wikimedia projects, so it falls within Commons' project scope per COM:INUSE. These arguments have been previously iterated. 80.221.159.67 12:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Reiterating what was said by User:Steinsplitter in closing the second deletion nomination: If there is evidence that the file has been hosted in violation of US law please contact the Wikimedia Foundation (in his role as hosting provider). 80.221.159.67 12:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I recommend imposing a 1-year moratorium on deletion nominations. Three nominations in a 2-month period is an abuse of the process and just wastes people's time. If the circumstances change sufficiently then it can be reviewed a year from now, or if the legal context changes the foundation can delete it at its own discretion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep So TünnesUndSchäl, a user that [:[Category_talk:Females_having_sex|"been irritated of a photograph showing a close-up of a penetration in the german Wikipedia"]] - by the way what kind of articles were you reading to appear this kind of imagery? I ask this as i find odd what kind of article would had this kind of imagery except ones related to sex and pornography? - after your first (and third deletion request about this file) not happy with the closure, you open a new deletion request only 2 months have passed, with the very same arguments and make several wild claims without backing them up with facts and laws. You, that only "contribute" with deletion requests of this kind of files, as you are on a moral crusade per your own words as you asked "Is there any cleanup of this category planned?", should know what the law of the land is, beggining per Miller v. California.

File in use so in scope. This movie has articles on 12 languages in Wikipedia, so educational and " it is regarded as one of the most important releases during the so-called "Golden Age of Porn",[5] and remains one of the best-known pornographic films" per english Wikipedia article.Tm (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: the file has been in used continuously in the article for almost a year, so we don't have to look at the 'scope' question. Laws on child protection may play a role, but this is not handled by our DR procedure. If you think there is a legal problem with the file, please contact legal at wikimedia dot org. --Jcb (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]