| Revision as of 21:50, 25 February 2015 editTheFarix (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers134,691 edits →User:Joe1234← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:02, 25 February 2015 edit undoUnbroken Chain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,193 edits →User:Joe1234Next edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Keep''' As TheFarix states, we generally give wide latitude to what users do with their user pages. It's ain't nobody's business, if they like some celebrities. Same stuff you can have by simply opening the ] .... This is very weird nomination. ] (]) 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' As TheFarix states, we generally give wide latitude to what users do with their user pages. It's ain't nobody's business, if they like some celebrities. Same stuff you can have by simply opening the ] .... This is very weird nomination. ] (]) 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Comment''' The whole reason this page was even brought up was because of some nude and semi-nude images that were on the page in 2006 as part of the {{u|Kingstonjr}} "censorship" protest. However, those images where removed later that year and are no longer an issue. —''']''' (] | ]) 21:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | **'''Comment''' The whole reason this page was even brought up was because of some nude and semi-nude images that were on the page in 2006 as part of the {{u|Kingstonjr}} "censorship" protest. However, those images where removed later that year and are no longer an issue. —''']''' (] | ]) 21:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :*'''Keep''', I think we have some sockpuppetry going on here and think it bears mentioning that the originiator of this IP has socked dishonestly before to achieve an end. Not much to go on for a SPI but I'm curious just to how the IP choose Lightbreather out of thin air... Smells fishy. ] (]) 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:02, 25 February 2015
User:Joe1234
WP:UP#NOT, WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTBLOG Lightbreather (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Weak delete, but only on the basis of WP:NOTBLOG. I do not believe the page, at least since 2006, violated the "Images that would bring the project into disrepute" section of the userpage policy. But if you look at what the page is, it's just a list of links to articles and images that the author just likes. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as the only arguments presented for delete are founded in very subjective interpretations of policy/guideline and unsubstantiated claims presented as indisputable fact. From what I have seen of Misplaced Pages philosophy, I think we would err on the side of keep rather than delete. This page went unknown for years until sniffed out by one individual and brought to ANI, and suddenly it's something that needs to be eradicated immediately for the good of the community. Not buying it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete since 1) user is gone forever and is not coming back, and 2) an editor objects to the page. This is necessary and sufficient for most cases like this since the rights of long-dead throwaway accounts have little standing. Herostratus (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, easy fix, just restore to this version created by the user himself prior to the image additions to the userpage. — Cirt (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Cirt, the images themselves (ones that are of free use) aren't even troublesome as they are already present here on Misplaced Pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Image's have since been removed so no valid reason for deletion, Lets close this and move on...... –Davey2010 19:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep We generally give wide latitude to what users do with their user pages. I would suggest trimming out all the redlinks to images that has since been deleted. I have also reverted the blanking of the page so that editors can evaluate it. There was no legitimate reason to blank it before nominating it for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 20:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep As TheFarix states, we generally give wide latitude to what users do with their user pages. It's ain't nobody's business, if they like some celebrities. Same stuff you can have by simply opening the Cosmopolitan (magazine) .... This is very weird nomination. Hafspajen (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The whole reason this page was even brought up was because of some nude and semi-nude images that were on the page in 2006 as part of the Kingstonjr "censorship" protest. However, those images where removed later that year and are no longer an issue. —Farix (t | c) 21:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, I think we have some sockpuppetry going on here and think it bears mentioning that the originiator of this IP has socked dishonestly before to achieve an end. Not much to go on for a SPI but I'm curious just to how the IP choose Lightbreather out of thin air... Smells fishy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)