Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/gp

 __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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Allstarecho/gp
This in no way aids in writing an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD. Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 04:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep How can you even think it is vandalism first...and to Koavf, how does your age, what sex you are, where you live, etc aid in writing an encyclopedia? Your bachelor degree, the fact you went to Indiana U? If we used your rational, 95% of userboxes would be deleted. C T J F 8 3  chat 04:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take the advice of this ANI and don't look at my user page/the ubx if it bothers you. C T J F 8 3  chat 04:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the issue There are plenty of offensive userboxes that are of no real consquence to me; my point is not that it's offensive, but that it's unencyclopedic. What I studied at university is useful as someone could ask me to work on articles related to philosophy and political science (my fields of study), but there are plenty of userboxes which are not encyclopedic and should be deleted. I even have some on my userpage and I would be fine with deleting them from the page if they were deleted from Wikipedia (it's happened before.) As far as where I live, if you'll look at my talk and its archive, I have been asked to take photos of locations for Wikimedia projects due to where I live; that is also encyclopedic. Stating one's biases about potentially contentious political issues (e.g.) might be useful as pointed out by Gavia immer below, but pointing out (e.g.) food preferences is not. The other stuff exists argument is a weak one at best; sure, other userboxes should go, but I came across this one now and simply saying that others should be deleted is no argument for keeping this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't point me to that stupid essay and act like it is any sort of policy. Your sex and age have nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. What about your favorite color userbox? Is there a new Wikipedia:WikiProject:RED project I'm unaware of that will make it easier to find members with your userbox? BTW, are you going to nominate User:UBX/porn, User:Phunting/Userboxes/Pornography, User:UBX/pornstar, User:UBX/sex, User:MyNikko/Userboxes/Sex Addicted for deletion, or are those ok because they aren't specifically gay porn? C T J F 8 3  chat 19:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Essays How about some policies that might be more germane: WP:CIVIL or possibly WP:AGF? I am not going to bother nominating a slew of userboxes simultaneously; I might as well have this as a test case. As I pointed out the last time I wrote something to you, there are useless userboxes on my page and I would be in favor of deleting them as well if they were nominated. As long as they are not, I will keep them, but if they are nominated, I will support their deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Recording one's biases (such as an interest in gay porn, which most editors explicitly won't have) is legitimate and does benefit the encyclopedia, even when the intent may have been to do something else. This isn't presented in any disruptive way, either - you have to squint pretty hard just to see what the images are supposed to be. There's nothing wrong here. (ec) It also is plainly not vandalism. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Gavia said it well. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is pretty much the ideal case of a userbox: "This user (positive verb) this (noun)". It doesn't disparage anyone, it doesn't ridicule the beliefs or practices of others.  There's a strong precedent that userboxes about preferences, be it culunary, sexual, or religious, are beneficial to writing an encyclopedia.  They give greater insight into the point of view of editors, which is always a Good ThingTM. Buddy431 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Buddy431 says it best; this is the quintessential userbox, that doesn't ridicule or disparage others; I see no reason why it should be deleted. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 20:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - in general terms, I agree with Gavia and Buddy. In specific terms, this actually does relate to this user's editing preferences and could indicate bias. → ROUX   ₪  20:19, 7 October 2010 (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.