Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Images of feces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 08:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images of feces

  • M/K Difficult one, but I don't think these things are here gratuitously - if someone wants to WRITE about sh-t, then someone out there is like to want to READ about it. And from there, it's not a large step towards providing pictures. I go with Merge or Keep, rather than removing them because pictures of cars covered in pigeon poo don't entertain some people.
  • Not needed, and we have commons for image galleries anyways. For some reason I also highly doubt the GFDL status of the second image. --Conti|✉ 00:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Check Talk:Feces for why editors created Images of feces. Eyeon 06:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I note that despite the creation of a separate gallery for this purpose, the above user continues to edit war over including the image in the Feces article: [1] [2] [3] and forged a vote on a poll on that article's talk page [4] to that end. See my vote, below. Demi T/C 18:21, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete
  • Flush. Not needed. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:22, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sanitize for Wikipedia's protection. --FCYTravis 00:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this cr... no, no, I won't say it! ;-) 23skidoo 00:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I am sure we all know what they look like. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you know what the other kind of rabbit feces look like? Kappa 01:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Excrete. -- BD2412 talk 01:31, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Comment This page was created to have a place for the images that were previously inlined on Feces, but which were removed, to mollify the user who added those images. It is(was) linked to by feces in a box that says "Image of human feces can be found at Images of feces" to protect users who would like to learn about feces without having to look at pictures of it. To those who would like to remove these photos entirely from Wikipedia, I request that you weigh in on Talk:Feces. Nohat 01:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone voting delete here is contesting the presence of the images on Wikipedia - just this gallery-type article. The images (or, as someone suggested below, thumbnails linking to them) should be put back in feces. -- BD2412 talk 03:21, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, the option of voting Merge is not clear to all voters. Eyeon 05:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Clarifying: this is not a vote, as Eyeon as already voted to merge, below. Demi T/C 18:32, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I wasn't voting to merge, but rather to delete this article. My comment was not a change of vote, simply a clarification that I'm only voting to delete the article, not the individual images contained therein. However, I have no objection to a merge, as I think an article on feces without a picture would be lacking. -- BD2412 talk 13:31, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disgusting, but encyclopedic. Note that the article was not created gratuitously -- it's a breakout of material from feces. We don't censor material that's offensive to others --- how can we justify censoring material that's offensive to us? ----Isaac R 01:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's totally unnecessary. I really can't imagine someone not intending this as a gag, and it's vandalism, plain and simple. Matjlav 01:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with feces. Though I still think it's vandalism to have made that page, those pictures could be a bit more acceptable merged, and placed around the page. Matjlav 20:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the images back into feces and tell the editors of that page that Wikipedia is not censored. Make them into small thumbnails if that helps. Or keep this page. Kappa 02:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think this is vandalism to rebute a previous comment. This is an online encyclopedia and information such as this should be included. However the pictures on there are poor and few.--EatAlbertaBeef 02:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an image gallery. -- Joolz 02:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - And the puns are all too easy. Amerika 02:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't need this crap in the Wikipedia. --Xcali 02:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Let us bring the Great Feces War to a close. --Barfooz (talk) 02:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - redundant, images can just be put on feces. jglc | t | c 03:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, check out Talk:Feces for a discussion of why we can't do that. --Barfooz (talk) 03:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not (toilet) paper. This article is just shit. JamesBurns 05:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back into feces. This page should be judged within the context of the article on feces, from which it is linked. See feces talk page. Eyeon 05:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This seems valid to me. User: Bifkin — (Improperly signed comment actually by 211.28.164.142; user's 22nd edit.)
  • Delete It is not valid, there is no content here, only pictures. The wikipedia, last I checked, is not a repository of pointless pictures. If they need to be anywhere, put them in the feces article and possibly in their own category, not a seperate article -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with "Wikipedia is not paper", and that includes toilet paper. Not encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Flush & bleach. If these images are copyvios, then they should be deleted. If they are properly licensed, this should be turned into a category at WikiCommons. Either way, this article is a POV fork and needs to be flushed down the toilet. — Chameleon 12:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and rename. Although the current images can, and should, be merged back into the feces article. The analysis of scat is an important part of field biology. This includes not only the identification of the various types of feces for species that may be hard to see, especially with those with nocturnal habits, but also the analysis of the scat to determine the diets of the different animals. For example, I own one field guide that is just for identifying scat. BlankVerse ∅ 14:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any appropriate photos should remain with article feces. If not appropriate there, not appropriate here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I am not going to ask how they got the second picture! I am not going to ask! It's in feces and it doesn't deserve its own gallery article. Sonic Mew 15:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? Because it's repulsive? Not relevent. There's a good explanation for this article on Talk:Feces. If nobody can be bothered to read it, this whole "collaborative encylopedia" concept is a joke. ----Isaac R 16:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I have looked at the talk page, but I have already given the reason. It is not needed because it is already in feces. Sonic Mew 16:42, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back If you really see a problem with a picture of a turd or two or three, then shouldn't we just link to the pictures directly, and not put them on a seperate page? Or maybe just make it a sub page. I doubt the GFDL on the first two pictures, and I think the third is highly amusing. I really don't see how you can find a picture of a human turd so incredibly disgusting that it can't be in an encyclopedia. Don't we see this once a day or two? It is a little silly to need the picture however, for the same reason. --Phroziac 17:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. SI units should be used in the caption of the first image. What the hell, it's about a sensible as any other suggeston here! Physchim62 17:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mere picture galleries don't belong in Wikipedia. If the image is appropriate/inappropriate for the article, or if it needs to be linked, that's a separate issue. I think Eyeon has made it very clear that regardless of the existence of an article for the purpose, he will continue to insist the image be inlined on the Feces article, and back up that insistence with bad behavior (as he has done on this vote by changing votes: [5] [6], and on the talk page by forging a vote [7] and voting as a sockpuppet [8] [9]; Eyeon admits to being 70.177.90.39 [10]) Demi T/C 18:21, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not an image bank --Doc (?) 19:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete worthless Ashibaka (tock) 20:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Samboy 20:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article has no value above that of feces --TimPope 22:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless anyone fancies merging with fan? Hiding 19:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. the not paper has been soiled. Wikipedia is not an image bank but an encyclopedia illustrated on occasion by images. Do not merge back into feces; what do these images contribute to the article? carmeld1 21:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back into the main article. --W(t) 23:17, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not censored. Fair enough. Wikipedia is, however, an encyclopedia, not a repository of pictures of dung. How the hell does this improve the knowledge base of Wikipedia? In my opinion, it does not. Therefore, delete, regardless of what the inclusionists say. --Scimitar 15:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'm not an inclusionist, i'm a AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD! --Phroziac (talk) 16:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with feces. --Der Sporkmeister 16:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay with me. What's the big deal about that piece of shit? To me, a Human is just another animal, as User:Jong has said on his User page. I do not understand why is there fanaticism going on for a piece of human shit, probably due to religious barriers. But religion, again, is created by man's own ideas! Furthermore, a piece of shit may have its own purposes on wikipedia. I suggest Keep and merge with Feces, but if it's deleted, I don't care.Mr Tan 03:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - I don't get it either, sounds like hipocracy to me. I personally find animal crap more disgusting then mine. They really should fight the picture on Meconium. --Phroziac (talk) 16:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would not be rediculous if it were at commons:Category:Feces, for example, but not here. Wikiacc 19:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete A page like this undermines the credibility of wikis. It serves no encyclopedic value.Barneygumble 21:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All images are (sadly) already on feces. JFW | T@lk 01:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.