Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Homosexualist/U/appauled (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:  no consensus. But WP:BOLDly moving to some other title regardless (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

User:The Homosexualist/U/appauled

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

WP:BLP violation - isn't mentioned on Ron Paul's article. StAnselm (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as inflammatory and divisive userbox. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not sure I see what's inflammatory about it, compared to other political userboxes which are allowed to exist. --🌈WaltCip - (talk)  14:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which other political userboxes contain BLP violations? StAnselm (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the BLP violation? 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  16:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling his politics "right-wing populism". But I'm asking a serious question - I'd like to know the other user boxes with BLP violations. StAnselm (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not a BLP violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's making an unsourced controversial claim about a living person. That is precisely what our BLP policy prohibits. StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Firstly, it’s opinion.  Importantly, the subject is (was) a highly public politician. Thirdly, also critical, it is not at las controversial that he was a right wing populist. Maybe you want to quibble with the word “wing”, but right, right of Center, right wing, these are terms of perspective and thus opinions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Right-wing populism" is a specific ideology - linked to in the userbox. And it's clear from the article that it is often viewed negatively. StAnselm (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This does not make a “BLP violation”. “Issue” at a stretch. Not a deletion reason. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Characterising anyone by specific terms leads to it being useful for negative rhetorical purposes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, as an alternative to deletion, I would be OK with it being changed to "This user opposes Ron Paul". StAnselm (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with criticism that the userbox is unclear as to what the user means to say. Is he critical of Ron Paul, with right wing popularism being an example of criticism, or is he critical of right wing populism, with Ron Paul being an example? Is the criticism that Ron Paul is not a pure or genuine conservative?  Or is the criticism that this populist needs to be noted as first being right wing?  I don’t like the userbox, too clumsy, inarticulate, too brief to understand, but I don't quite think it needs deletion.  I encourage BOLD editing, and only coming to MfD if rebuffed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's a very old userbox (I think the BLP has changed since that time), and the creator hasn't been active since 2009, so there might not be much pushback. StAnselm (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. If WP:BLP policy is to be this strictly applied to userboxes, there are going to have to be a great number of removals: e.g. those stating that the contributor has a particular qualification, for a start. I can't imagine many contributors would be happy with that, or with having to provide a source to back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, but that is an explicit exception at Biographies of living persons: "users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space". StAnselm (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd not seen that, thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep not seeing this as sufficiently controversial itself, but the title needs to be changed if it’s kept as it’s mocking and inflammatory. Dronebogus (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2022 (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.