Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User pageantfan (2nd nomination)

 __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  userfy (non-admin closure). Kharkiv07 ( T ) 01:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:User pageantfan


Unused, illegible, has nothing to do with building the encyclopedia. —Keφr 08:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete in favour of Template:User WikiProject Beauty Pageants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The two concepts are not the same, so the existence of Template:User WikiProject Beauty Pageants shouldn't preclude having this one as well. Perhaps its unused because no one knows about it, since its name doesn't include the word "beauty".  I have notified WikiProject Beauty Pageants.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This smacks of canvassing. Does anyone expect that members of a wikiproject covering beauty pageants are going to dislike them? —Keφr 12:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is normal to notify interested parties during a deletion discussion. The members may like pageants, but not that userbox. If you can think of any other groups who might have an opinion, for or against, please notify them.  I couldn't think of any at the time, but maybe some members of WikiProject Feminism would have an opposite view.  I will leave a message there.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Template is now used, and font color has been changed, so any issues here have now been fixed. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Having anything to do with building the encyclopedia has not been. —Keφr 16:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because it's WP:POINTY, and not a valid reason to nominate something for deletion in the first place. The fact that it was unused and the poor color choices, now, those were valid reasons to list for deletion, but, as has been pointed out, both of those issues have been addressed. Besides, shouldn't this be listed at TfD, anyways? After all, it is in template space. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I open WP:POINTY and what do I see? "When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only" — which is what I am doing. Examples listed on that page suggest an interpretation of "do not play devil's advocate on Wikipedia", which I am also following. —Keφr 17:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keφr had good reasons for starting the deletion discussion, particularly the point about no one using it. If the reasons are addressed and become no longer valid, that's a good thing. Kephir's nomination will have improved the encyclopedia whether the userbox is kept of deleted. About not being used to build an encyclopedia:  A lot user boxes are like that; they don't improve the encyclopedia directly, but they do indirectly by (1) efficiently letting other users know what a user's interests and biases are, and (2) helping improve the morale of some users who enjoy making their user pages colourful yet informative.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And subvert the morale of others, who might otherwise have something to contribute. The semi-conscious thought process goes like: "My goodness, look at all these tacky boxes and signatures. This project seems full of tasteless, vain people more interested in asserting their own uniqueness and importance than improving this vast knowledge base. Instead of calmly and rationally discussing facts, people argue about their identities, and policies like the one saying that Wikipedia is not a social network accomplish nothing to discourage this. Not that anyone respects any policies anyway. Why would I want anything to do with this project?" —Keφr 20:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Harsh words. One might suggest that your anti-userbox crusade isn't particularly improving the encyclopedia either.  I'm not a big fan of userboxes, but this whole batch of nominations seems like largely a waste of time. Gigs (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Being a personal fan of a beauty pageants is cute but not particularly useful. If someone is a member of the WikiProject, that's a legitimate template. I'd presume that someone who is a fan is here because they would like to work on those pages, else it's just fluff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy to User:UBX or User:Nepol (the creator) It is used, the colors have been fixed, and userboxes like this one are allowed and common in user-space, so I see no reason to delete. See WP:USERBOX, and particularly WP:USERBOX which says "userboxes in User: space may not be as directly collaborative in nature as those in Template: or Wikipedia: namespaces, which are expected to adhere more tightly with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is." Wugapodes (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy, not related to the encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy - Not sure why the deletes considering userboxes are the norm here anyway, Perhaps move it to "User:Nepol/UBX/Pageantfan" so anyone who wants to add it to there userpage can do so. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy - Userboxes are usually in the User: namespace, although sometimes it can be in the Template:/Wikipedia: namespace. Those ones should be neutral, and "beauty pageant fan" isn't really neutral.-- 3 of &diams; I gofirst 20:45, 23 September 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.