- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 Delete Not a shred of encyclopedic value. Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n
In Short this in not aimed at improving wikipedia (see point 8 of Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?) and could conceivably bring the project into disrepute (see Wikipedia:User page#Images on user pages) Nate 14 81 11:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- keep How could it bring the project into disrepute? All of those images are hosted over at commons aren't they? Regards of the intent, this is one of those rare occasions where I think it should be kept because of the social commentary it provides - we use those images in article, we host them at commons - so why shouldn't a user have free commons hosted images on his userpage? The issue must therefore be the context of the images - and I don't see anything wrong with the context of the images, the fact that it makes people uncomfortable is actually a useful thing because it promotes discussion about the limits of wikipedia. I wish more userpages were as though-provoking and provocative in showing us the limits and boundaries of our current system and promoting useful discussion. --
Cameron Scott (
talk) 12:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- On disrepute, we regularly see the debate and complaints about having these kinds of images on articles and, while I support whole heartedly that WP should not be censored and that such usage is simply accurate, I don't think it is a good thing for wikipedia to be a porn web host, which is essentially all this page is. As to the limits of wikipedia I believe this is beyond them, as this is not useful to the project, the images don't make me uncomfortable but the usage does. I think this is similar to the line on deletion of articles at the ' Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists' in that I am all in favour of useful imaget but this is like unnesseccary profainty in articles (see Wikipedia:Profanity) -- Nate 14 81 12:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not because it's boobies in userspace, but because it's clearly making a WP:POINT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- serves no encyclopedic purpose; just a WP:POINT and WP:NOT#WEBHOST violation. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Obvious WP:POINT. The images are technically fine (legally), but this page isn't. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Whatever this helps grow, it ain't the encyclopedia. Delete per our usual tradition of nixing wanking galleries. Durova Charge! 16:48, 21 November 2008 (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 miscellaneous 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 Delete Not a shred of encyclopedic value. Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n
In Short this in not aimed at improving wikipedia (see point 8 of Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?) and could conceivably bring the project into disrepute (see Wikipedia:User page#Images on user pages) Nate 14 81 11:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- keep How could it bring the project into disrepute? All of those images are hosted over at commons aren't they? Regards of the intent, this is one of those rare occasions where I think it should be kept because of the social commentary it provides - we use those images in article, we host them at commons - so why shouldn't a user have free commons hosted images on his userpage? The issue must therefore be the context of the images - and I don't see anything wrong with the context of the images, the fact that it makes people uncomfortable is actually a useful thing because it promotes discussion about the limits of wikipedia. I wish more userpages were as though-provoking and provocative in showing us the limits and boundaries of our current system and promoting useful discussion. --
Cameron Scott (
talk) 12:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- On disrepute, we regularly see the debate and complaints about having these kinds of images on articles and, while I support whole heartedly that WP should not be censored and that such usage is simply accurate, I don't think it is a good thing for wikipedia to be a porn web host, which is essentially all this page is. As to the limits of wikipedia I believe this is beyond them, as this is not useful to the project, the images don't make me uncomfortable but the usage does. I think this is similar to the line on deletion of articles at the ' Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists' in that I am all in favour of useful imaget but this is like unnesseccary profainty in articles (see Wikipedia:Profanity) -- Nate 14 81 12:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not because it's boobies in userspace, but because it's clearly making a WP:POINT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- serves no encyclopedic purpose; just a WP:POINT and WP:NOT#WEBHOST violation. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Obvious WP:POINT. The images are technically fine (legally), but this page isn't. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Whatever this helps grow, it ain't the encyclopedia. Delete per our usual tradition of nixing wanking galleries. Durova Charge! 16:48, 21 November 2008 (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.