Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Iraq


 * 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 debate was Closing as keep without prejudice to later re-opening of the discussion This is not an evaluation of the merits of the request, but of the timing. I apologize for closing when I have participated in the discussion, but I think the proper way to deal with this is obvious. DGG (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Iraq
Based on the criteria being expounded in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist I believe this userbox to be divisive and inflammatory to editors who do not support the war and do not support the US troops being there.  Web H amster  00:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or keep based on the outcome of the other MFD. As we can't have political bias of any sort in an international project, if one goes they both need to; if one stays they both need to. Lawrence Cohen  01:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close as this seems to be nothing more than a WP:POINT nomination. - Koweja (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that your best shot? -- Web H amster  01:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WTF Can we please stop with the damn userbox war(s). Take it to Village pump (policy) for cripe's sake! I would even back you on that forum. But not here. As soon as you tie the results of one MfD into the results of another, you are defacto changing policy from the bench. -- 12 N oo n 2¢ 01:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold off on this If we do delete the other one, I'd say you had an extremely good case, but at the moment its confusing the discussion. DGG (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's going to be a 4 day overlap, plenty of time for consensus and a delineation between the too. In any case the pundits in the other MfD are constantly using the good ol' WP:WAX argument. What sauce for the goose etc... -- Web H amster  02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the other goes for "political" reasons, it will be open war season on a lot of these boxes. Lawrence Cohen  01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy close. As DGG said, you will have a good case if the other one is deleted. At the moment, though, it's just a WP:POINT nomination. Try reopening it after the other discussion ends. Bart133 (t) (c) 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep:
 * "I believe this userbox to be divisive and inflammatory to editors who do not support the war and do not support the US troops being there."
 * Let me ask you this: My personal viewpoints aside, does this userbox explicitly assert either of those two things? Does it explicitly single out American troops, or say that this particular user supports or opposes the war? This userbox says in as many words that the user "supports the troops." Users may place this on their pages as they wish, each for their own reasons. Perhaps they do so for support of a family member. Perhaps to make a political statement that they support the war. Perhaps, even, that they support the troops, even if they oppose the war. But none of this is specified by the userbox itself. This is a simple case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not a valid basis for MfD. There is no policy basis to delete it, and as such I vote for this MfD to be closed immediately. ~ S0CO ( talk 01:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference where the troops are. There are many people who do not support, in fact they despise, the US troops period. What about them? -- Web H amster  02:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, where does the userbox specify US troops? This is looking more like an act of vendetta than a legitimate attempt to improve Wikipedia. ~ S0CO ( talk 02:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Errrr, now I realise that you created the box but need I remind you that the picture of US soldier and the US Army helicopter may have something to do with it. No Brit pics there at all.-- Web H amster  02:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. And as we know, the US and Britain are the only two countries which ever had troops in Iraq, now, aren't they? With a max of two images, my options were limited. And to date, your justification for this being "inflammatory" is the existence of an MfD on an unrelated userbox. ~ S0CO ( talk 02:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The US and the UK are the 2 largest foreign troop contingencies yes. You could equally have chosen an image from each force, but given all the patriotic userboxes on your userpage it's pretty clear what your intent was. -- Web H amster  02:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:UP, Userpages are "a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working" -- Chetblong TalkSign 01:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can keep, if we call this one political, what about the ones for the Democratic party or the Republican party? Supporting the troops doesn't necessarily mean supporting the war.  Sf46 (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Close this per WP:POINT -- See WebHamster's comment at the other MfD: "Well let's see if the consensus on "divisive" works on the other side of the coin: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Iraq. -- Web H amster  00:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)" ---  If someone else wants to nominate this, after the other MfD is closed, that would be fine. However I don't think this blatant illustration of a POINT should be entertained.  Equazcion  •✗/C • 02:09, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep just because I can. SuperGodzilla 2090 02:14, 16 January 2008 (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.