Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:L'Origine du monde (2nd nomination)

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 blank. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:L'Origine du monde

User has been blocked indefinitely, and is not going to be unblocked anytime soon. Convention in these cases is to replace the userpage with template:blocked user; this, however, was reverted, with an indication that discussion at MFD is required. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this is the convention? To quote from the template documentation: While everyone can add this tag, it should typically only be placed by the blocking administrator. If the blocker doesn't think it's needed, the odds are it isn't.Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would be unusual and unnecessary. This has been discussed before and the circumstances have not changed. Decision is the blocking admin's, who did not see fit to delete. For goodness sake, take this page off your watchlist and stop drawing attention to it with these silly MfDs. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep I see no valid reason to delete this, and I think i will support an unblock the next time the matter is discussed. DES ^(talk) 00:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ask the deleting admin, or go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support blanking (revert to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:L%27Origine_du_monde&oldid=574392708) and hard protection, until the user is unblocked (if ever). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment from blocking admin/closer of previous MFD. I believe this user was deliberately acting provocatively, hence their block. But re-nominating this page so soon after a snowball keep is ridiculous. I get the feeling that what we have here are two users at opposite ends of the spectrum. One who wants to talk about genitalia and put pictures of it all over the place, and another who thinks we shouldn't do that at all. The rest of us are in the middle, we don't want pictures of vaginas and penises adorning as many pages as possible but we also know that they have their place and purpose on this project. My preferred state for this page was simply blanking it in the interest of WP:DNFTT, but that was reverted and frankly it just did not seem important enough to argue about it. There is basically no precedent for deleting a user page just because the user is blocked. That fact that I blocked this user for WP:NOTHERE but then turned around and closed the previous MFD as a snowball keep is a clue that was apparently missed by the nominator. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are you kidding me? Beeblebrox, do we edit the same encyclopedia? Blocked users are commonly treated as unpersons who frequently have their comments struck and user pages replaced. It looks like someone was overzealous in the previous nomination, but we're seriously going to keep a blocked troll's trolling user page because of knee-jerk reactions against censorship? Come on. {{blocked user}} is entirely appropriate here. For what it's worth, if the user is unblocked, I wouldn't object to the page as it stands now. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or failing that, blank/replace There's no reason to let this stick around. It's just permanent evidence of his NOTCENSORED drama. (disclaimer: I was the nom last time) Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blank per BDD. I don't see the value in deletion but there's something to be said for "trolling userpages". Killiondude (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, I am in favor of blanking the page and just leaving it at that unless and until this user is unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and add blocked notice as a compromise between retention and deletion. Should the user be unblocked and return to editing, the edit history of the page would still be available to them. Super Mario Man 02:52, 27 November 2013 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.