Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Userbox/Necrosexual

 __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:  delete. Ivanvector makes a reasonable case for keeping, but it seems that this has failed to persuade anyone to change their vote or attract new keep voters. signed,Rosguill talk 22:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Userbox/Necrosexual

 * – (View MfD)
 * Userbox/Necrosexual
 * Userbox/Zoosexual

Purely procedural nomination; I have no opinion. See here. The content of the discussion is below: — J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  03:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC) For obvious reasons. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Wrong venue * Pppery * it has begun... 20:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's a template. Secondly another template in this family was recently deleted at TfD, as you are aware. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that another userbox was incorrectly deleted at TfD when it should have been MfDed does not justify TfDing an unrelated userbox template instead of MfDing it. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom. I'm usually a staunchly anti-censorship editor, but in this case, I'm making an exception. There's no need for this crud. --Dmehus Talk 17:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Bleh. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete both Wikipedia is not censored, but we don't host everything, especially in userboxes. Hog Farm (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Jokey but liable to be offensive on average, and clearly intended to get a rise out of people. Perhaps more to the point, these have no connection of any kind of (legit, non-advocacy) editorial work, nor inter-editor collaboration (by contrast, LGBT userboxes may indicate a great deal about someone's likely interest in various wikiprojects, etc., as may userboxes identifying someone as a mortician or coroner, or as a zoologist or animal-control officer). We tolerate some userboxen that aren't WP-related (mostly entertainment-related ones), but not when they're just designed to alarm or anger people (or, I it's possible, to declare one's literal participation in sexual exploits are are crimes in most jurisdictions. I don't think we'd permit, say, a pro-rape or pro-pederasty userbox, nor a non-sexual one devoted to one's meth-cooking or bank-robbery exploits, either). In short: WP:NOT4CHAN.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep both per WP:NOTCENSORED. Both necrophilia and zoophilia are real paraphilias, and if someone wants to plaster their userpage with a badge advertising their particular fetishes, so be it. No evidence has been provided that these templates are being used abusively, and if they are there are better ways to deal with it than nuking them. This is a blatant WP:IDLI nomination. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:56, 31 January 2020 (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.