Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/sex (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:  keep. (non-admin closure) JJPMas ter 21:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

User:UBX/sex

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Unencyclopedic; WP:NOTCENSORED only applies to articles. Not sure how this improves the encyclopedia. Firestar464 (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Harmless userbox nominated based on apparently misunderstood premises; userpages are permitted to have this kind of content (there's a few quite high-profile ones I could point you to if I wanted to name names). Vaticidalprophet 07:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Virtually no userboxen are encyclopedic – that is not their purpose. There is nothing about this userbox that violates WP:USERPAGE. --bonadea contributions talk 08:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep — No WP:UBCR or WP:UPNOT violations. —  csc -1 13:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is there a reason why userboxes should be censored? (And deletion discussions over political userboxes are absurdly contentious.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/sex. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep not discriminatory/hateful, though a bit crude. SK2242 (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Talking about sex in user space is very unprofessional. Per our WP:UP guidelines, we do not allow WP:POLEMIC material. Our user page is a place to talk about our Wikipedia activities primarily, and this userbox is asking to be used as vandalism. Aasim (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also per WP:OM -
 * A template like this is a potential violation of the PLA. Aasim (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unprofessional? Wikipedia editors are not professionals, so that's pretty much a non-sequitur.  I also wonder how the userbox could be interpreted as polemic? Which opinion or position does it dispute?  You claim that it "is asking to be used as vandalism", which is a confusing statement to me – could you point to a place where this userbox has been used for vandalism in the 15 years it has existed?  As for WP:OM, it is specifically about "the use of potentially offensive words and images in articles", and the principle of least astonishment (PLA) is also about articles, so those arguments (as well as the long quoted text) don't apply here.  Even if it did apply, an early-20th century illustration for a literary work on Greek mythology would hardly be considered "offensive" by most standards.  --bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not have to agree on the definition of "professional", but I believe maintaining some level of professionalism is important to help contextualize policies and make improvements. I am saying that if you were to bring up sex out of an educational context it is not super appropriate or professional. I do not care about what the image has to do with it. I just care that user pages and talk pages maintain a degree of professionalism. Aasim (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Harmless userbox that offends absolutely nobody. It was pointed out on the previous nomination: "Sex is a valid encyclopedic topic, and the expression of interest in (or affinity for) it is within the range of topical disclosures usually permitted on userpages". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep No real reason for deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Zoozaz1 talk  12:51, 24 March 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.