Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ALM scientist/Muhammad face Pictures

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 speedy delete ALM blanked the content, which I interpret to be a self-request for deletion. Resurgent insurgent 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ALM scientist/Muhammad face Pictures

ALM scientist has created a petition, for which he has begun to canvass, [1] to censor depictions of Muhammad after failing to obtain consensus at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation and Talk:Muhammad/images. See also previous discussion surrounding the essay Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ALM scientist/Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies. Petitions do not facilitate dialogue and are not an appropriate way of engaging Wikipedia. Proabivouac 07:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for keep advertising and helping me (as always). -:) --- A. L. M. 08:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Blatant instance of WP:SOAPBOX canvassing — it looks only for signatures from people who agree with the author, but doesn't even try to solicit any responses from people who have other views. If this isn't canvassing then I don't know what is. (Speaking of which, ALM's position is based on shoddy original research, and goes against consensus besides. It's so broken on so many levels.) Bi 09:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated above. The fact that ALM petitions to violate WP:CENSOR makes the whole thing null and void anyway.--Atlan (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Ridiculous soapboxing. Tarc 12:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SOAPBOX and in itself an attempt to violate WP:CENSOR.--Strothra 12:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: ALM, you should stop your campaign to delete pictures of Muhammad from this website. Its not going to work. You're beating a dead horse. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above--sefringle^Talk 03:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- sefringle^Talk 04:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, ridiculous soap-boxing... but not a violation of WP:SOAP since it's on user space, related to the encyclopedia, etc. And I shall again complain in vain that believing pictures don't belong in an article is not the same thing as censorship. Let's remain liberal on userpage policies... but, if ALM think it's going to change anything he's wrong. gren グレン 07:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Even if it's not technically a violation of WP:SOAP, it's a direct violation of WP:CANVAS, specifically the guideline against biased campaigning.

Also, if ALM has any valid grounds for maintaining that a picture of Muhammad doesn't belong there, then people can be led to accept that. But no; all he has is repeated shoddy original research, and repeated attempts to push his position even after it's been rebutted countless times. This is plain old censorship disguised as argument, it is disruptive behaviour, and it is un-liberal. Bi 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This was overwhelmingly kept... so, it's not his POV that's the problem it's the appearance of voting which since he hasn't mass-emailed it seems to just be campaigning which isn't against policy. Personally, I think ALM should just delete this page. He has his argument page which is perfectly acceptable and this page doesn't do anything. So, ALM you could save us the trouble of discussing this.... gren グレン 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's ridiculous soapboxing, no, it won't produce anything useful, but keep.Proabivouac 18:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - trying to gain a consensus through soapboxing on a personal page is a poor idea. All he has to do is get a bunch of friends to endorse while not giving the other side an option to rebute. I am indifferent in the matter overall but know that this is not the way to go about it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not because it's soapboxing (although it is), but because consensus is not driven by petition. This, by its nature, will be used as "Look at everyone who agrees with me!" -Amarkov moo! 01:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's canvassing, and not in good faith. Any serious dialog on this issue would allow different views to have their say; this just requests assent. --Haemo 07:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Canvassing, soapboxing, and "Asking the other parent" (AKA forum shopping) --Farix (Talk) 12:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CENSOR and WP:CANVASS.  hmwith  talk 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Petitions do not override consensus, or really determine our actions at all. ^(H) 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Asking for opinion of community is a good outlet. Don't stifle it.Anwar 19:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not asking for the opinion of the community. It's "asking" for the opinion of people who already agree with ALM. Bi 21:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • He already knows the opinion of the community.Proabivouac 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — the page seems to have been blanked. Bi 21:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:SOAP.Bakaman 23:46, 18 June 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.