Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obscene image

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway Talk 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Obscene image
This is a fake policy (the proposed policy tag was added later) made up by User:SuperDude115. This user also created Template:Speedyimage and the categories Category:Obscene images and Category:Obscene image candidates for speedy deletion, which are also listed for deletion. Delete. ulayiti (talk)  23:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It has a proposed template on it now, so I suppose I'd be OK with it staying to allow discussion as long as the template and categories go. Dmcdevit·t 23:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This proposed 'policy' severely contradicts WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not censored). I don't think there's much useful discussion to be had from a policy proposal that is against some of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia. - ulayiti (talk)  00:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, the only reason I'm not a "delete" is that I feel a little uneasy about deleting a policy proposal, however misguided, when we could also just slap a "rejected policy proposal" tag on it and keep it for the record. We could also just userfy it as we've done with other such unpolished proposals. Just a little uneasy about an out and out delete is all, this is definitely not a a full keep vote though. Dmcdevit·t 05:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd agree with you, but in this case, this is not so much a proposed policy; it's more of a declaration of intent by a single user. SuperDude didn't apply the tag to it. I wouldn't oppose the "rejected"/userfy idea you propose, but only if SuperDude supports it. Surprisingly, he hasn't chimed in yet.  android  79  13:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete because the intent of the policy as stated is already a settled matter: "unwanted" is not obscene, WP:NOT censored for anyone. My weakness stems from not wanting to stifle debate. However, the debate is so clearly going to fail that there is little point keeping the policy page; it would have been much better to start at the Village Pump. -Splash 23:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Policy created without consensus, and against WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not censored). --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If policy concerning images and censorship needs discussion, it can take place at WP:NOT where it will receive much more attention. android  79  02:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Discussion already exists at Potentially offensive images and other places. Angela. 02:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Angela.-Poli (talk &bull; contribs) 03:54, 2005 July 29 (UTC)
 * Delete per Angela K1Bond007 04:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 06:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Proposed policy would be better placed on WP:NOT so it's repetitive. Jtkiefer  T - 06:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Sam Hocevar 08:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete of course. Nice try SuperDude115. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 12:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not censored. Also, anything pornographic would probably get listed and WP:IFDed anyway due to copyright issues. Thus rendering this alleged polciy needlessly redundant. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. One person's windmill-tilting does not Wikipedia policy make. --Angr/undefined 22:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Particularly since this "policy" was linked to from an purported "speedy-deletion" template, which was used to tag images for speedy deletion under this alleged "policy". This is at best a profound misunderstanding of how policy making works here. DES 05:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an attempt to bypass the established methodology for policy creation, and existing Wiki copyright rules already prohibit porn if the policy is followed. Modern porn images aren't PD, after all. Xaa 05:12, 6 August 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.