Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/LGBTinterest not

 __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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:UBX/LGBTinterest not
Subtle personal attack on LGBT, if you aren't interested, don't list anything about it on your userpage. The "rules" for usage says "This userbox is for "LGBT" people who just want to be left alone." Looking at all the users who use this ubx, none state they are LGBT, and a lot say they are straight C T J F 8 3  chat 23:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates userbox guidelines by focusing on what the editor is not interested in. I would generally support deletion of any userbox that says "This user is not interested in ...", whatever the topic was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does not violate userbox guidelines; expresses who the person is, an LGBT who doesn't define themselves by so-called "LGBT issues".  I fail to see how this is any different from the proposing editor's userbox "This user doesn't believe in myths or superstitions", and in fact a number of others listed as well.  In my opinion to remove would be censorship.  Irrelevant what some editors may misuse it for. ChiZeroOne (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we here to discuss the atheist userbox, or this LGBT one listed here? Plus that one has been discussed once, twice already. Plus the " number of others listed as well" was a Keep at a recent AfD too. C T J F 8 3  chat 21:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely, they were kept. As I said I see no difference between the two statements from the point of view of the userbox guidelines, do you disagree with that? If I must bring up examples of other related userboxes and the decisions on those to illustrate why this should be kept then I will do so. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you didn't specify, when you were bringing up the other userbox, I thought you wanted the other one deleted too....I absolutely hate essays, but WP:OTHERSTUFF C T J F 8 3  chat 21:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about quoting that, for a start the applicability of that advice to Miscellany is limited. And more to the point it is about any "stuff" that may appear on Wikipedia articles, where there may have been little or no discussion of inclusion, not relating to issues that have been discussed and consensus formed.  In fact on the contrary WP:OTHERSTUFF specifically mentions that bringing up similar situations to demonstrate consensus on an issue is in fact quite a strong argument in deletion discussions;
 * Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.
 * So I ask is this wording here significantly different in regards to the userbox guidelines compared to "This user doesn't believe in myths or superstitions" one? If not I would argue there seems to be little/no good ground to delete based on content.  Isn't this discussion just a restatement of an already completed debate? ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the comparison is good...so a userbox that says "This user is not interested in christian values" or "this user is not interested in jews" with the star of david or the Israeli flag crossed off would be ok? C T J F 8 3  chat 22:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, a majority of the people who have this userbox on their user page also have a userbox identifying themselves as straight or heterosexual. The actual text of this userbox is "This user is not interested in LGBT issues." It does not say, "This user is LGBT but not interested in LGBT issues", contrary to the implication above. Furthermore, editing it to say that the user is LGBT but not interested in those issues would likely wind up mischaracterizing the majority of the people who are using the userbox now (because most of them specifically self-identify as not being LGBT). So changing the userbox to conform to ChiZeroOne's description of it can't be a possibility here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya, I looked at all the users with it, and that was one of the main reasons I nominated it. If we did your change, and notified all the users with the box, I'd be ok with it. C T J F 8 3  chat 21:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I am saying we should not change the content of this userbox. This one should just be deleted. If someone wants to start a new userbox for LGBT people who aren't interested in LGBT issues, they should make that a different userbox. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I should point out it is not my description, it is stated on the userbox page. I can understand how the userbox can be used in ways different to that stated, but you could say that for many userboxes that may have dual meaning.  I fail to see why the wording needs to be changed if kept when it is current practise to accept similar statements as self-identification. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging this MfD with the "not all members" MfD nearby (this is not a !vote to merge userboxen) because they appear to be related in content if not in origin. -- N  Y  Kevin  @244, i.e. 04:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary. One of these userboxes is in use, the other is not; one is legible, the other is not; and there may well be other significant distinctions between them. Since these MfDs have already been under discussion separately for a few days, they can remain under discussion separately through the end of the MfD period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per and . This userbox is a subtle slight on LGBT so should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 3 November 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.