Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Planeless Snake/Goatse

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 a clear consensus to DELETE and page possible counts as a speedy for spam. --Chris 07:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Planeless Snake/Goatse

Fair warning: Link leads to a 'shock' image, albeit in an odd format. Well known shock image rendered using a coloured wikitable, perhaps to avoid new image patrollers. Page has no conceivable non-nefarious purpose. CIreland (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Userpage. No acutal image uploaded. Therefore, delete not justified. Planeless Snake (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Image format has no bearing whatsoever (you can't convert a .jpg to .png and claim separate copyright on that, for example), and whether or not the image has been uploaded through the upload process also has no bearing whatsoever (the bottom line is, here's an image hosted in Wikipedia servers). So: Is this an appropriate image format and should it be converted to another format? Image source information? Fair use rationales? And let's not forget the ultimate question: Does the image in this format have any encyclopaedic use? And if some argue that this is not an image but an ordinary user page - well, does the phrase "appropriate use of user space" mean anything to anyone? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and my reasoning above. Wrong format, no encyclopaedic use, and user pages should be reserved for stuff that's at least marginally relevant to building an encyclopaedia. There's also multiple problems - the image is not in fact in "wiki table format" but raw HTML table format. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with relish Obviously this is here only to disrupt the encyclopedia. I've already blocked the user as an obvious troll. I say delete this without remorse. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete It's hard to see this as anything other than vandalism. And it's a copyvio. And the author has now blanked it, leaving just a link to a shock site. And it's a userpage for an indef blocked user. I think that's about four different criteria - take your pick. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Slaughter with extreme prejudice. No need for this at all. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Stomp per common sense.--WaltCip (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete this material could not have any encyclopedic use whatsoever, and the user who posted it has been indef blocked. Hut 8.5 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia isn't censored (in whatever namespace), but this is just repugnant and not useful in any way. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:31, 19 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.