- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted, procedural closing. Result would've been a WP:SNOW closure for deletion. ^ demon [omg plz] 13:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The last time this was nominated for deletion, the nominator's argument was that it was "so obscene that it distracts Wikipedians from carrying out normal activities". My argument is that "[u]ser pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual preference are unacceptable" ( WP:MYSPACE). This does. - ∅ ( ∅), 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete because the wording makes no sense. "This user enjoys being penetrated during anal intercourse." -- So the user enjoys being penetrated while being penetrated? Replace "during" with "via" and maybe it could be kept. I'm joking of course though. Delete per nom.
- Delete Wikipedia is usually not censored, but this goes too far. Leave the explicit sexual stuff for article space. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 17:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. My interpretation of "Wikipedia is not censored" is that we don't censor encyclopedic content to avoid offending people. However, userboxes are not part of the encyclopedia, and exist only to build and strengthen the community; as such, they should respect basic standards of decency and good taste, and should avoid creating divisions in the community. I'm not on any kind of moral crusade here, but I do find this userbox distasteful, as I'm sure many editors do; we should avoid using userboxes to cause offence. Walton One 18:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep there are literally dozens of other userboxes that could offend somebody, just because you are offended by this one is no reason to delete: the proffered reason "[u]ser pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual preference are unacceptable" is certainly applicable to numerous other activities and userboxes but for some reason this is being singled out. If we are willing to cater to what videogames users play, what tv shows they watch, and every nuance of viewpoint on all issues political, social, and spiritual - why is sexual any different if WP is not censored? Carlossuarez46 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do this thing ugly. There is no way this should even be here! WP:CENSOR doesn't apply to userspace! - Jéské ( v^_^v Kacheek!) 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kill it per Walton. CO 2 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Offensive user names are not permitted, offensive userboxes shouldn't be either. John Carter 00:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not useful for building an encyclopedia. John Vandenberg 05:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Bugger all. Well-written and referenced Encyclopedic content on the manner in which one might perform such an act, this ain't. Delete. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted, procedural closing. Result would've been a WP:SNOW closure for deletion. ^ demon [omg plz] 13:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The last time this was nominated for deletion, the nominator's argument was that it was "so obscene that it distracts Wikipedians from carrying out normal activities". My argument is that "[u]ser pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual preference are unacceptable" ( WP:MYSPACE). This does. - ∅ ( ∅), 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete because the wording makes no sense. "This user enjoys being penetrated during anal intercourse." -- So the user enjoys being penetrated while being penetrated? Replace "during" with "via" and maybe it could be kept. I'm joking of course though. Delete per nom.
- Delete Wikipedia is usually not censored, but this goes too far. Leave the explicit sexual stuff for article space. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 17:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. My interpretation of "Wikipedia is not censored" is that we don't censor encyclopedic content to avoid offending people. However, userboxes are not part of the encyclopedia, and exist only to build and strengthen the community; as such, they should respect basic standards of decency and good taste, and should avoid creating divisions in the community. I'm not on any kind of moral crusade here, but I do find this userbox distasteful, as I'm sure many editors do; we should avoid using userboxes to cause offence. Walton One 18:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep there are literally dozens of other userboxes that could offend somebody, just because you are offended by this one is no reason to delete: the proffered reason "[u]ser pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual preference are unacceptable" is certainly applicable to numerous other activities and userboxes but for some reason this is being singled out. If we are willing to cater to what videogames users play, what tv shows they watch, and every nuance of viewpoint on all issues political, social, and spiritual - why is sexual any different if WP is not censored? Carlossuarez46 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do this thing ugly. There is no way this should even be here! WP:CENSOR doesn't apply to userspace! - Jéské ( v^_^v Kacheek!) 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kill it per Walton. CO 2 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Offensive user names are not permitted, offensive userboxes shouldn't be either. John Carter 00:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not useful for building an encyclopedia. John Vandenberg 05:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Bugger all. Well-written and referenced Encyclopedic content on the manner in which one might perform such an act, this ain't. Delete. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.