Commons:Deletion requests/File:Co-Ed Secrets BDSM 3.png: Difference between revisions

Pornographic, poor quality, out of scope, not linked to except on a single user page (clean-up project) JN466 01:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - especially if commons must pander to conservative US jurisdiction, because that is where these old prelinger archive movies may still be running. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Pieter Kuiper. Trycatch (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment As outlined here, I don't see a net benefit right now in keeping this image, given that it is fully accessible to minors and not used anywhere but the BDSM gallery. The place from which this image came will remain available. --JN466 12:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Bondage is not per se Pornography. This is clearly POV.Nemissimo (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I refer you to Policy:Won'tSomeoneThinkOfTheChildren, which doesn't exist yet, but damned well should. Would you support removing all the naughty words from the dictionary as well? Because I can promise you that as a child, I used to get my salacious jollies from reading the scholastic definition of "penis", "frottage" or "labia". Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 14:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep No Pornography according to German (or as far as I know any other European) law. Same goes for the other BDSM-images shown here. --TheK (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Not pornographic, charges of pornography slanderous. --Melanom (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]