Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lolicon Sample.png
This is child pornography. It is illegal. 70.160.111.163 10:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep: Dost test analysis:
- . Whether the genitals or pubic area are the focal point of the image; no
- . Whether the setting of the image is sexually suggestive (i.e., a location generally associated with sexual activity, such as a bed); not in a normal sense
- . Whether the subject is depicted in an unnatural pose or inappropriate attire considering her age; no
- . Whether the subject is fully or partially clothed, or nude; partial, but appropiate in context
- . Whether the image suggests sexual coyness or willingness to engage in sexual activity; no
- . Whether the image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer; unable to determine without context
Summary: Fails (or rather passes?) the Dost test. Image may be provactative to some. Standards are different for cartoons as compared to images of real people. Obscenity law could apply, but Miller analysis results would be similar. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Passes the Miller test. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Absolutely not illegal. Strong keep. This image was created by a longterm peerless editor specifically to illustrate what could be a touchy subject, by not being risque. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Legal image, non-pornographic cartoon, self-created by a respected contributor so no copyright violation, and what's more it is actually used to illustrate the topic by 23 wikipedia editions, and Wiktionary as well, so it is entirely and legitimately within project scope. Anatiomaros (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep where is the pornography? --Don-kun (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep All said. --Niabot (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept because the provided reason for deleting the image is not comprehensible --D-Kuru (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Additional explanation: Even I can understand why the IP wants to see this image is deleted and even the IP is right in some way (Lolicon images are usually not made so that some people do not jack off to it) it's neither pornographic nor child pornography. Thereby it's also not illegal. It's in scope and no violation of anybodys copyright. Even deletion requests should be open a little bit longer it's not really useful in this case. If you don't agree you can start a new deletion request with a new reason for deletion.
This file was initially tagged by Jean-Paul Corlin as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: precautionary principle. Opportunity to be inconsistent with the “antipédopornographique” legislation in France and in many Western countries. 1989 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - Wikipedia is Not censored, this is a free use example without going into sexual detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Free image, passes dost test, a lot of the same points from ~2010 still ring true. It's not provocative, is relevant to an en.wiki page, and was created for the sole purpose of illustrating said topic without being illegal/inappropriate. Tutelary (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The french law (227-23 of Code Penale) said it's forbidden to publish when the minor (real or in fiction) is represented with pornography. In this case, the characters are not nude (all sexual attributes aren't visible) and they are not in suggestive position. The only thing which is sexual in the file is the title, but it's not suffisant.--Gratus (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Per dicussion we had almost 9 years ago --D-Kuru (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous discussion Nate 2169 (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Kept. As above. 大诺史 (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
