Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JAKAZiD

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The result of the debate was keep and the nomination was withdrawn as well --Y.Ichiro (会話) 05:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:JAKAZiD

This userpage contains a lot of inappropriate content, including several sexual references and one of bestiality [1] Boris Allen 11:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia is not censored, and you've failed to give any other reason for deletion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• (I do recognize, to be sure, that it's quite probable that this nomination is made jocularly from one friend to another, but I address the merits only on the off chance that indeed this nomination is essayed seriously.) Keep Were the userpage particularly disruptive to the project—viz., were it to impair the user's actual collaboration with other editors or dissuade other editors from remaining with the project or working with the user (to impair, that is, prospective collaboration)—deletion might well be counseled, if only because userspace serves only to advance the goals of the project writ large; here, though, I don't see as anyone has been particularly off-put by the userpage and I observe that JAKAZiD appears to be contributing propitiously and in good faith, such that I don't appreciate any harm that has befallen or will befall the project in view of JAKA's maintaining his userpage as it is. I wonder also whether the nominator ought first to have addressed his concerns at JAKA's talk page; one's nominating for deletion the userpage of an editor whose contributions are ostensibly positive prior to the former's addressing his concerns to the latter or without former's notifying the latter strikes me as less-than-civil or -decorous. It should finally be observed that, even as I am as far from interested in Furry fandom and, especially, the sexual aspects of fursuit as anyone, I don't know that one's partaking of such pursuits is generally understood as one's engaging in beastiality (once more, I gather that the nominator's use of the beastiality formulation is facetious, but I suppose it's possible such use was serious). Joe 18:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep no valid reason given for deletion. Eluchil404 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh man, if "I see no valid reason" was a speedy keep criterion... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, no reason derived from policy or guidelines is perhaps better wording then. Eluchil404 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not censored, and the user page does not seem to violate any of the user page guidelines. I would remove the zipper image if it appears that it will be deleted from Commons, however. Also, given the comparison of a furry fandom image to bestiality (which the image is not), I would be willing to call the faith of the nominator int o question. --Coredesat 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete it. --Carnildo 08:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - One person considering something "inappropriate content" is not cause for deletion, and no other reason is given. Badbilltucker 18:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, fair enough. I want to get along with all you guys so if I am deemed to be out of place by suggestinn the deletion of this page, I accept that. In fact I may as well give my Keep vote, so that hopefully the tag can be removed as soon as possible. I'm looking forward to working with you guys in future. Regards, Boris Allen 23:14, 20 November 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.