Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pornography/Gallery2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. IronGargoyle 05:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Pornography/Gallery2

First, it is a cut and paste copy of User:Markaci/Nudity, without the required GFDL history. (That page has had a pair of no consensus MFD discussions and I'm not nominating it for discussion.) Second, it has no incoming links from anything except a deletion review and MediaWiki:Bad image list, so will not be found by folks looking for encyclopedia content. Third, labeling images as porn could be disadvantageous to the WMF if there ever was a relevant legal case. Since there is no encyclopedic benefit to the page (no links) and at least some legal risk from having the page, I think we are better off without it. That the GFDL required history is not present is another, but solvable, reason for deletion. GRBerry 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and my comments on this page in the DRV. I can't really look at any of these images right now though, but on IRC it seemed like the gist was that most were statues, paintings and so on, or pictures of nudists. I'm not sure we should be calling this stuff porn. --W.marsh 16:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No value as it stands now, and is incorrectly titled anyway - many of the images would be hard to classify as pornography. Concur with nominator's reasoning. Risker 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete categorizing all this stuff as porn is also needless POV. -Nard 17:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Shalom Hello 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps it should be moved to another project portal, such as human sexuality? DGG (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That might help but many of these aren't even sexual images or meant to be sexual, they are simply nude. JoshuaZ 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
human sexuality can be seen as a rather inclusive subject, if we had one on human biology it would do also, but I dont think we do.DGG (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • redirect to User:Markaci/Nudity. I would assume this exists as a backup copy of links in case that is MfD'd, and as such is useful to the portal and accompanying projects. This end, however, is obtained by saving the history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirects into userspace are themselves speedyable. Portal space is quasi-encyclopedic and should not contain self-references beyond a list of Wikiprojects or requested articles. --B 06:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This copy was not created by Markaci, but by Arundhati lejeune (talk · contribs). --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As was noted in one of today's entries at DrV, if we present something as pornography, law enforcement may be inclined to agree. Also runs afoul of both WP:NOT and WP:BEANS. Heather 00:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - it appears to be a collection of images of nude humans, for a variety of reasons ranging from pornography, to art, to medicine. It's improperly titled, and don't really see what the purpose is of gathering all these items toegther in the first place -- well, beyond the prurient. --Haemo 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason of service to Wikipedia is presumably that they may be useful to illustrate articles on pornography. I had nothing to do with either of these pages; so I cannot comment on other reasons (but I wouldn't be surprised). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. "Pornography" label seems inaccurate and arbitrary for most. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The purpose described by Septentrionalis is already served by other means, and we should not be labeling things as pornography without good reason (among other things, they may contain photography of real persons who may object to the characterization). --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Independent of policy, having this page is just a bad idea in general - although I'm sure we have some images which could possibly be considered titillating, there's no good reason to point people to it. More practically, there's enough different sorts of images here that the resulting collection isn't of any possible use to the encyclopedia (face it: there's no reason you'd go looking here because an article needed some porn), and there's definitely no reason this should be a portal subpage. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:29, 29 July 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.