Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Markaci/Nudity

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 No consensus - keep Steve block talk 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Markaci/Nudity

just a hudge gallery of all nudity on wikipedia, and it must put a huge strain on the server dishing all the images up, also is this even remotley user or wiki related content? also [1]

• delete Benon 01:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Weak Delete Delete. Possible copyvios, just a gallery of images. Perhaps categorization of these images would be more approriate? xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? those are images all on wikipedia, if they're copyvio, they should be handled at image level, not killing the page since the images would stay -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The possible in my prior statement was due to not having checked each image, but thaught some were being used out of license. It looks like all the fair-use images are link-only though. Modified by delete to weak delete. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU

Flip-flopping, back to regular delete, see my comments on User:-Ril-/Nudity discussion above. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 23:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing on [2] that indicates it does not exclusively refer to articles, this is not an article. Of course articles should have a limited use of images and links, but not user pages. --Vizcarra 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't find a purpose to build this page that supports our mission - building an encyclopedia. Looking at the page history, it's vandal-bait. It's also apparently almost impossible to maintain as the images on it are frequently deleted (often on copyright grounds). If there is a valid use for this sorting, Xaosflux's idea of a category is a better idea. And, by the way, Category:Nudity already exists. Rossami (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandal baiting is fine, if we can get to vandalzie stuff that we're watching, they won't vandalize stuff we're not watching. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Users are ordinarily given significant latitude in their own user space, as long as they don't make personal attacks or engage in deceptive or illegal behavior, or start turning it into free webhosting. I don't see any of those problems here. If individual images are copyvio, that's an argument for deleting that image, not the list. --Trovatore 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a comment — images that are copyrighted may be permissible in the article namespace due to fair use, but not in user pages. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Then the images should be just removed. That isn't an argument to kill the whole page. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• strong keep After all, this is not a vote, it's a debate. So here are some issues to consider.

1. Wikipedia is not censored for minors (official policy). So the fact that these images are nudity it's no grounds for deletion (if these were imags of trees, it wouldn't be grounds for deletion either).

The nominator didn't state that this should be deleted because of it's content, just what the content is. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Copyvio. From what I've checked, these images are mostly free images (from commons). Other than removing the few fair images and keep them away, this page is in no way copyvio.

3. Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.. Again from WP:NOT official policy. Notice however that this doesn't conflict, as Markaci didn't upload those images, they are already at commons and are being already used in other articles. So he's not using wikipedia as a free webhost service.

The NOT citation you gave specificaly referes to the presentation of images, not simply the contribution of the images. This page appears to specificaly be a Collections of photographs or media files with no text xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

4. From userpages guidelines (not official policy): User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Notice however, that this page could indeed been serving such purpose (Markaci is away it seems so we cant' ask him at this very moment) But here's an idea: if people keep updating this, this would be a grat tool to monitoring which nudity imags are NOT being used on articles and thus keeping at bay OTHER people that may indeed be using wikipedia as a free webhost provider.

5. Server drainage? I don't think this page is that much visited. What about User:Drini/Images should that be forbidden as well?

Agreed, this page's affect on the servers is negligable. As for your gallery, I think it is approriate (even in absence of policy) use of images for the original contributor of them to maintain a gallery of them if they desire. If this was a collection of images contributed by Markaci, I would have voted Speedy Keep. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For all those , reasons, I believe this page should be kept. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, for reasons stated by Drini. (Ibaranoff24 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

• Keep Drini says it all and more. Janizary 01:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the "censorship" and "fair use" reasonings are not very relevant. Wikipedia is not a webhost, see WP:NOT and WP:UP. Radiant_>|< 14:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

HOWEVER... he's not using WP as webhost, those are images in use at articles, he's merely linking them. But in any case the argument would go towards deleting the imags (if they weren't being used at articles), but as it stands, the argument is groundless. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Very, very strong delete, No matter where these images came from, and no matter where they go, they are for adults only! And the cenorship rule is BOGUS! What idiot came up with that rule, besides they should at least have a warning before the actual page if this user isn't deleted! Besides, this user had no contributes, what's he done for us? And as stated before, there already is a catagory for stuff like this... Vninja

No contributions? Did you even check? Special:Contributions/Markaci

Now, I don't know what _your_ definition of contribution is, but there's more than a handful there. kvidell

The user has contirbutions, the account does not, and it is not usful in any way.Vninja 01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not even an article! It's on userspace. And what did you expected to see on a page titled "Nudity"? And no matter how much you call idiots other wikipedians, those images are actually used on articles. Many of them are actually art works, burn the museums??!!??!-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This gallery doesn't help Wikipedia in any way. Wikipedia is not Flickr, nor it is a webhost, and this gallery has no clear purpose. If it's meant to organize nudity images, then a category would be more effective. This is an abuse of the User namespace: user subpages should be used to work on articles. Mushroom 22:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I totally agree with Xaosflux (see User:-Ril-/Nudity). Mushroom 02:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It doesn't violate the conditions for a user page, and technically speaking, nobody's user page "help[s] Wikipedia in any way." Even so, it seems like it could be a potentially helpful repository of information for editing tags and whatnot, as mentioned above. Dylan 01:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not violating anything, and I agree that it's always nice to have everything in one place. If he wants to use his userspace for this, let him. kvidell 01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong KEEP - if the images are OK, there's no way this page can't be OK. Furthermore, I can't imagine it gets many hits. Thparkth 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Rossami. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It may be tasteless, but the greater danger would be bogging down AfD discussions with policing good taste. --Hansnesse 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Drini. Just a routine attempt to censor Wikipedia. No valid justification presented to delete it. --TheMidnighters 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Stronger Keep. It clearly prohibits fair use pictures, and it's a user's subpage. It may be a strain on the server if the nominator keeps looking at it every hour. Leave it alone. --Vizcarra 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Stong Keep This is a user page with pictures from exclusivly from wikipedia. If these pictures are okay to go on an article, they're certainly okay for a user page, which is subject to even less scrutiny. --Descendall 07:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above JanSuchy 09:12, 14 October 2006 (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.