The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prior debates: 18 Nov 2004, 17 Dec 2004, 29 Dec 2004

Totally absurd. There are pictures several pictures in this article, one wikipedian has taken it upon himself to determine which photos are "offensive" and which are not. Descendall 07:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and all other censorship forks. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: delete entirely without leaving a redirect, per MacGyverMagic/Mgm. Make this a protected ((deletedpage)) if deemed necessary. Delete inbound links or point them to the original article as appropriate. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the censorship. The photographs are important for the integrity/impartiality of the article. --Frekja 10:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily redirect Strong delete the actual article, and lock the redlink. I was sure this had been deleted, as WP:NOT censored. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mgm's points are well taken, and my vote is changed to reflect this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy Redirect Indeed. Delete per above. Dottore So 11:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. Whatlinkshere for the article also links to 2 debates that led to a keep and a no consensus decision on the then Votes for deletion. Some pictures are included in an article which explicitly states in its title it doesn't have pictures? That's just plain stupid. Either we delete the article entirely or we keep it. Don't make some misleading version with pictures when they shouldn't be in this specific article. It's only gonna open a can of worms to people who'll be offended by images they weren't expecting. Don't redirect as that would be misleading to anyone looking for the censored version. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, without even looking at the article. It's survived three vfds already. Time to let it go. —Cryptic (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of those VFDs, the first one is a nearly unanimous vote to delete, and it was deleted. It was only allowed to be recreated on a technicality; while the article had the same content, it updated itself automatically instead of by hand. All three of those VFDs had a majority to delete. It was last listed on VFD almost a year ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's part of the reason I VFD'd it again. In the year that has passed, everyone who voted to delete has seen their fears born out: though the entry is named "no pictures," there are pictures, which creates a situation where you have one person claiming the authority to decide what is offensive and what is not. Personally, I think photos of a guy getting punched, someone being threatened with a dog, and a man with electric wires hooked up to his hands are just as "offensive" as anything else, but that's neither here nor there. A concensus was never really reached, and I think we can now reach a clear one: this article was a bad idea. Descendall 16:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect-and-protect and protect deleted page if necessary. POV fork. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. I think there is at least possibility of unending more-of-the-same if this is kept, although it hasn't happened yet. If we need image suppression at all, it should be a technical feature in which users can specify, as a preference, that they do not wish to see images. This has been discussed interminably and the conclusion has always been to reaffirm community consensus that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good idea, Dpbsmith. I would support an "all images on/off" feature in the "Files" tab of Special:Preferences. Whether or not to view images should be based on a user's bandwidth concerns (load pages faster on dial-up) or printing needs (use less ink making paper copy) but NOT on the subjective basis of the images' content. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fork as above. --InShaneee 19:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This page is laughable, as it actually contains pictures. This page should not exist for the same reasons that Toby should not exist. For those of you who haven't met Toby, he did the exact same thing that this article is trying to do: unverifiably, subjectively, censor pages. This shouldn't be happening here. Wikipedia is not censored. --Blackcap | talk 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If images are suppressed and the entire code is copied from the main article. Then who included the images in there and how did they do it? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Censorship and Wikipedia is like walruses and babies. They just don't mix. -Silence 23:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - should have been deleted a long time ago. Jooler 13:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This is a POV fork of a valid page, and ought to be speedyable. Tuf-Kat 21:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.