Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:L'Origine du monde

 __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.

The result of the discussion was  keep. We appear to have a snowball here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

User:L'Origine du monde


User has been indefinitely blocked for reasons related to their desire to post "shock" images everywhere they can, and their userpage basically contains no other content. I tried to remove just the image on my own but was reverted per WP:NOBAN. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is not the case that they were blocked because of "their desire to post "shock" images everywhere", which barely figured in the discussion that led to the block. The overwhelming reason was an unwillingness to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse re a dispute with another editor. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  19:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There is some disagreement as to how to handle the user pages of blocked users, but I don't think there is much precedent to just delete them. I have blanked it though. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is crazy! This user was just blocked last night and their User page is already up for deletion? How do you know he/she won't appeal their block and be active again? I can see deleting the User pages of Editors who have received community bans or who are inactive. But you have User pages of Editors who haven't edited since 2006 and, seven years later, they are still here. Why rush to delete a User page the day after an Editor has received a block? It seems like a case of IDontLikeHim. Liz  Read! Talk! 16:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support/Delete - Most editors have info about themselves or something of relevance to the project (ie helpful links etc), Sorry but a huge oversized painting is a) irrelevant and b) says nothing about the user. Davey 2010  Talk  17:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I should point out tho I find this painting rather weird for a userpage but I have no objections to paintings on userpages in general. Davey 2010  Talk 22:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So would you vote keep if the editor included |400px in the NE Ent 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, If it was a different painting & sized down I'd have no objection to keeping. Davey 2010  T  22:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

this user particularly singled out from the many who must be blocked every day? Being annoying is no reason to be airbrushed out of history. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  19:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose on the grounds that this just seems vindictive. I don't like his userpage or his trolling, but i'm willing to hope he's here for a good purpose and just got off on the wrong foot; the page is currently blanked, which is how it should remain until he is unblocked (if that eventuality occurs).  Kahtar  17:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with the page staying courtesy blanked until/unless he gets unblocked rather than being deleted outright. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What precedent do we have for deleting user pages of blocked users? How does s/he make an appeal if the page disappears? And where is the page history if the appeal is successful? And why is
 * Keep per Kahtar. NE Ent 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination does seems vindictive and without precedent.Tristan noir (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The proper response to posting clearly offensive images to a user page is to remove the images and notify the user, not to delete the user page.  However, in this case I don't even agree that the image is offensive. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deleting this userpage outright would be an overreaction, and also come across as unacceptably vindictive. AGK  [•] 09:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a policy-based deletion - indef is not infinite. Remove/change the image/size of the image/whatever ... but deletion is inappropriate - besides, the stated reason for the block in the OP is not remotely the actual reason for the block, and is unneccessarily inflammatory  ES  &#38;L  12:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see I was wrong about the block reason; I've struck it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2013 (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.