Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joe1234

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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.

Closing this discussion as moot since the page has been deleted by Drmies and restored to a blank userpage template by Cirt. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joe1234


WP:UP, 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. —/M endaliv /2¢/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 Wikipedia 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &mdash; 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 Wikipedia. - 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...... – Davey 2010 Talk 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 &#124; 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. Some 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 "censorship" protest. However, those images where removed later that year and are no longer an issue. —Farix (t &#124; 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)


 * OK--vandalism-only account from ten years ago, and that user page, well, we're not a webhost where some teenager can drop a bunch of porn. There are related accounts as well, which are connected: (see this edit) and . Someone close this please. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just throwing my two cents in really quick: something to take into account is that the user has not edited since 2008. While there are some other arguments at play here, we also have to consider that this person does not appear to be coming back any time soon. We can argue that the images were of some use to Wikipedia in one form or another and that this could be a censorship crusade, but there's really not any good reason to actually keep the user page for a person that's been inactive for over five years. Sure, it could make a WP:POINT if we kept it but then we wouldn't really gain anything by doing that either. If the user ever returns and wants his stuff back, we return it. Until then, there's just no reason to have it on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, leave the page the way it currently is: with the "not a webhost" template on the page. Despite all of the arguments and the potential sockpuppetry, I just can't see a very valid reason to leave this up. If this had been nominated as just a userpage for an inactive account (without the controversy) then odds are it would have been deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:21, 27 February 2015 (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.