Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Esskater11/Dirty images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 per U1-User Request. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Esskater11/Dirty images

Deleted by FT2 with the summary "un-encyclopedic subpage, see WP:UP". As prior discussion on the administrators' noticeboard did not appear to show a clear consensus that such pages can and should be speedily deleted, I have restored the page and am submitting it for discussion here. In particular, I note that, as a topical gallery of free images, the page is not entirely without relevance to the project, and indeed could possibly be useful to an editor looking for such an image to illustrate an article. I also note that, while this justification may seem somewhat tenuous, I believe it would generally be considered sufficient to retain, for example, a gallery of free pictures of flowers. Thus, I must conclude that the page had actually been deleted due to its subject matter, which seems to run counter to the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia is not censored. Although I do not, myself, consider the fate of this particular image gallery to be of earthshattering importance, my personal opinion would nonetheless be a weak keep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • KEEP - Some photos in the page are of clear encyclopedic value, and Wikipedia is supposedly not censored. The photos are not pornographic, but merely photos of naked women and drawings illustratin sexual acts. Copyright needs to be established, but if they are indeed free images, I see no harm in keeping them. Jeffpw (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:NOTCENSORED it only applies to articles and images, as regards offensive content on user pages, the relevant policy is at WP:UP#Inappropriate content. Jackaranga (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Commons and delete. Although Wikipedia is not censored, allowing a user to assemble a personal gallery of such images outside of any educational context presents a positive harm to the credibility of the encyclopedia. We are not a scrapbook. Although pornographic images are permitted to illustrate a relevant article, no such justification is present here (any more than there is justification to add a picture of the male genitalia to the cucumber article). If this particular collection is indeed of free images, it could just as easily be organized as such at Commons without undermining our mission. bd2412 T 14:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. I checked out all the images (very closely in some cases :P), and all of the copyrights seem to be in order, which means the images themselves can be kept. However, this does not mean that they can be placed on a page as an indiscriminate porn collection--this is a misuse of the userspace per WP:UP, and the user could just as well be served by keeping an HTML file on their hard drive or simply downloading the images from Commons. (By the way, if anyone is wondering what a discriminating porn collection is, I point you to User:Rama/Sexuality_drawings.) --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 14:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
One might just as easily ask the nominator to consider what the multiple deletion discussions for both of those pages, and the multiple keep results resulting from those nominations, mean when applied to this one. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Cyde's collection, at least, has a rationale (although I'm not sure it could not be served just as well by links to the pictures that do not display them). I agree however that this MfD can only be about the page nominated in the first instance. bd2412 T 15:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
A good point; I'll list those MfDs (the ones I could find, anyway) here for reference.
While I agree with many of the arguments in the "keep" discussions about these pages not doing harm, my understanding of WP:NOT and WP:UP simply doesn't allow pages like this. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Just a precision to start with: unlike some users had suggested the user is not storing "his dirty images", they seem to have been uploaded by a variety of different people.
  • At the reading ofWP:USERPAGE#What may I not have on my user page?, you will see that the page does not fall into any of the categories, the closest you come is Other non-encyclopedic related material. Perhaps the images are unencyclopedic I don't know, but concerns over images is not a reason to delete the pages that contain them.
  • However unlike the rest of wikipedia, and unlike someone said above, user pages are censored, see WP:UP#Inappropriate content, pages that are "likely to give widespread offense" are forbidden. According to wikipedia 53.5% of the world population is either Jewish, Muslim or Christian, so they would be offended by nudity. I think 3 billion people can be considered "widespread", especially if you add the 2.5 billion people that make up China and India and that have outlawed pornography. The fact that these images are tolerated in most western countries is not a gauge that they are deemed unoffensive, but rather that offensive material is allowed in order to preserve freedom of speech and information, however on user pages on the English wikipedia they are not. Therefore delete. Jackaranga (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't apply to user pages: Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users Jackaranga (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although a well measured nomination, it is flawed in most rationales it draws on. For example:
  1. Appeal to "encyclopedic value" - The images (which are all sexually oriented or explicit in nature) may or may not have encyclopedic value. However, if they are retained as having encyclopedic merit, then this can only be due to placement within encyclopedia articles, and not as a user subpage spread.
  2. Appeal to non-censorship - WP:NOT#CENSORED is a mainspace policy related to non-censorship of relevant content in encyclopedia articles. It is not a rationale for user or project space to include anything that any editor wishes, and indeed many things are prohibited to be placed in user and project space, by communal consensus.
  3. Appeal to usefulness - it is actually far more useful to place such images in commons. A user page spread of naked and explicit images is not likely to benefit the project any better, unlikely to be easy to find, and its motive is at best, unlikely to be encyclopedic. (A tenuous and unlikely rationale really isn't enough) By contrast a section in commons is very easy to find by anyone, can be searched for by tags and categories, and adds to existing archives.
A user page is provided for the purposes of the project, and is not owned by its named user. Some latitude is usually allowed in this (people are social and human) but as a rule, significant non-encyclopedic-related use is outside that line. As a community, we do in fact regulate user pages that are problematic or used to host content that is unhelpful or of no likely benefit to the project. WP:UP states for example under the heading What may I not have on my user page? that:
"Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian. Examples of unrelated content include: ... non-encyclopedic related material ... things pertaining to 'entertainment' rather than 'writing an encyclopedia' [...]"
"[C]ommunity-building activities that are not strictly 'on topic' may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia..." (WP:UP)
It's also worth noting that user subpages are also broadly subject to the same guidelines and requirements as user main pages (WP:UP), and that WP:UP contains various provisions alluding to removal of material that doesn't meet communal favor. AAt times, even thematic, informative, user subpages relevant to the user's editing area, that are not encyclopedic, have been subject to deletion (example), much less galleries of this type.
As can be seen, the spirit of Wikipedia:User page is that while latitude is allowed, such pages are not intended for significant long term presentation of personal matters and strongly non-encyclopedic content, and a page full of erotic images/porn (whichever they are seen as) is clearly there not for the encyclopedia, but for the user's own purposes and entertainment. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not really going to argue about the fate of this page in general, especially since its owner has noted that they don't mind it being deleted. However, I'd like to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding in your comment above. Contrary to what your point 1 seems to imply, most or all of these images are already on Commons. Many are also quite clearly encyclopedic: for example, the images of notable erotic models and actors are certainly valuable illustrations in articles about the people in question, as well as potentially on articles about adult entertainment and erotica in general. I'd also like to question your statement that the page in question "clearly there not for the encyclopedia". While you may or may not be right about the original motives of the user who created it, and while it's true that its location in userspace here (rather than in project space or on Commons) makes it less visible and thus less likely to be useful to other editors, it is, nonetheless, one of the better collections of tasteful and non-shocking free erotic images I've seen here, and thus a potentially useful resource for editors working on articles that would call for such an illustration. (That's not likely to be me, since I don't generally edit such articles much, although I do note that one of the images on that page is one that I'd previously retouched to increase its value as an illustration in Striptease.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Commons and deletefrom this page. IF useful for any article let people link them from Commons where they belong. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Question I was thinking of a place to store all of my uploaded images in a covinet place, would it be possbible for me to just move and re use the page to save room and not have to re create and article. If not possible just delted it cuz i reallys dont care Esskater11 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you uploaded your pictures using an account on Wikimedia Commons, you should see a "Gallery" tab at the top of the page when you're logged in that will show you all of your file uploads. Alternately, many users (myself included) keep a sort of "Wikidiary" to track their contributions--it's fairly easy to add pictures to, and since it would be informative of your work as an editor and a contributor, it would be more likely to enjoy support under WP:UP. From what I can recall, though, the images on the page being discussed (sadly, I'm not in a position to revisit 99% of those images right now) were uploaded by a number of users, making it less of a log and more of a collection. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 01:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Please note also that it is entirely possible to maintain a list of links to images you have uploaded without actually displaying the images themselves (see, e.g., User:BD2412/Contributions - General#Images. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. These images are very tastefully done and simply showcase the beauty of the human form. You people so avidly seeking deletion are probably just jealous of fit young people. These images, furthermore, do no harm. Belicia (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, Belicia, we are not discussing the deletion of the images; we are discussing the deletion of the page holding the images. And please refrain from making assumptions about our motivations; I know you're fairly new, but I should tell you that comments like that might be construed as being uncivil. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 06:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless Commons already has such images well catigorised.Geni 13:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If not mostly harmless, then clearly less harmful than the kerfuffle it has spawned. -- llywrch (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the page is a collection of images from various pages on wikipedia. It is also rather blatantly salacious in nature.--Marhawkman (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have blanked the page and apologized. Will a admin please delete at their earliest convenience. Esskater11 19:20, 21 November 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.