Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Malik Shabazz/Userboxes/Emma Goldman

 __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. ✗ plicit  06:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz/Userboxes/Emma Goldman

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Emma Goldman participated in a plot to assassinate a rich person in order to advocate her anarchist ideals. We shouldn't be glorifying people who participated in assassinations of people based on wealth (or other) status. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Emma Goldman was never arrested, charged nor convicted of any crime connected with the Frick assassination attempt. An infobox repeating an old political slogan is not glorification. The basis for this nomination is incorrect. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Our featured article on the subject at Emma Goldman states "She and anarchist writer Alexander Berkman, her lover and lifelong friend, planned to assassinate industrialist and financier Henry Clay Frick as an act of propaganda of the deed." This is based on her own autobiography. Regardless of if she was involved in that specific attempt, someone who is in favour of assassinating people based on wealth should not be glorified on Wikipedia. That's what this userbox plainly does. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Wealth" was not the reason for the assassination attempt against Frick. Rather, it was his deeply unethical behavior that caused thousands of deaths. Can't you at least try to get the facts straight? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Wikipedia is not your platform to SOAPBOX against anarchism. Please state a policy reason in the future when you want to delete something. Shushugah (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Glorifying someone who advocates for the murder of people they are involved in political disputes with goes against WP:UBCR. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is not "glorifying" violence or assassination, nor is it advocating it, so no valid policy-based reason for deletion has been given. I see Chess is on a Crusade, with lots of similar MFD nominations this evening; we should strongly discourage people rooting around, actively hunting for things to be publicly outraged about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Though it is borderline but at the end of the day lets not glorify people known for doing shitty things? I mean that does not sound super hard, so lets not make it hard! PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Oh, this is just someone trying to make a Very Important Point about something, and waste a bunch of peoples time. Great, love it here. Completely frivolous nomination, per above. Looking forward to the boilerplate response. Considering it takes one person to start these, and two or three to vote against them, it seems like Chess has actually learned a little bit about direct action from this exercise? Parabolist (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing about this userbox glorifies assassination. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with deleting almost all political userboxes on principal. Zoozaz1 talk  22:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, "I like Emma Goldman" is most certainly not a UBCR violation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - as its snowing argument-wise for keeping. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as this isn't glorifying assassination or political violence. —  csc -1 01:41, 18 May 2021 (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.