Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:-Ril-/Nudity

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, I count a 75% consensus to delete including the anon's keep vote. The discussion tends to favour deletion, the points regarding the webhosting and categorisation issues outweighing the issue with freedom of speech and efficiency. Hiding talk 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:-Ril-/Nudity and all 28 subpages

Yes, I know Wikipedia is not censored, but creating a lengthy list in userspace of all nudie pictures we have is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Radiant_>|< 14:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all, and any further such creations. I'm opposed to censorship, but this is clearly a violation of WP:NOT a webhost, an abuse of userspace latitude, and probably some form of WP:POINT. My only disappointement is that Radiant! beat me to nominating by 5 mins. --Doc ask? 14:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gtabary 14:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What is the difference between this collection page and a category? It does not take more server space, and I don't know if it needs more bandwith. On a side note, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
See my comments below on userspace v.s. categories. xaosflux Talk/CVU 21:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unessasry sapping of wikipedias bankiwth to have to dish all thos images upBenon 18:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, misuse of userspace. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, This is not usefull, and seems to be a stetch of good faith user space editing. There have been several of these galleries up on MFD recently, all seeming to do the same thing. Please note I would vote delete on these regarless of the content of the galleries. The only userspace galleries that I think should be in place would be a gallery of a user's own contributions, or of images that user is working on for a project (e.g. making a featured image candidate.) There seems to be at least a small section of users that must find something helpful in putting these related images together, but it seems that categorization would be a more efficient method, as
  1. That's what categories are for
  2. They would be community accessible
  3. They would not be bound by userspace restrictions on terms such as fair-use complications.
For all of those reasons, I will continue to vote Delete on all of these types of galleries. xaosflux Talk/CVU 21:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mushroom 22:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per xaosflux. Redundant, several times over. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per the discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Markaci/Nudity. It is tasteless, but I don't want to come through every day and arbitrate what is good taste. I will note that images (i) Used per fair use (or links to them) or (ii) exist in one of these projects should be deleted. The former because copyright laws (to me using links are a questionable technical circumvention which streches the origial intent of the rule), and the latter because Wikipedia is not a webhost. I can think of worse things people might find online than fine art and scientific illustrations. Note I do not support this for rights of free speech, only for effiency. Thus if this becomes a problem or issue interfering with the encyclopedia, I would delete with all due speed. --Hansnesse 17:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Three reasons:

- Most of the images appear not to be copyvio. - WP:NOT - There are plenty of other image galleries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.150.174 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete --MONGO 04:27, 8 February 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.