Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UkraineToday/No NATO


 * 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The result of the debate was Keep as withdrawn.  Syn  ergy 10:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:UkraineToday/No_NATO
The Userbox is divisive and negative, which the guideline WP:Userboxes is against. Also, per User_page, it is a polemic statement unrelated to wikipedia. Being pro-something is fine, being anti-something is just going to divide. User who created it is blocked indefinatly as a sockpuppeteer. Narson (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing deletion request. It seems there is a wider consenss I was unaware of and it seems that it would be best to get a community wide consensus to enforce or alter parts of policy rather than go about it n this way. Narson (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC) In principle, I support deletion of all political userboxes, for the reason that they are unrelated to Wikipedia and are or have the potential to be divisive; in practice, however, this is no different from hundreds of such userboxes currently in existence, and there is no reason to single it out for deletion over any others. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Being pro-something can be just as divisive as being anti-something; for instance, expressing support for the UDI by Assembly of Kosovo can be just as divisive as expressing opposition to it. In fact, being pro-something can actually be more divisive than being anti-something: for instance, expressing support for rape is more divisive than expressing opposition to it, due to social norms and laws. It all depends on the context.
 * Oh, I accept that being pro-something can be just as divisive, but WP:Userboxes seems to single out negative statements as being a big thing to avoid (though that is only a guideline). I'm more than happy to support the deletion of the political userboxes if you want to nominate them. That policy is breached elsewhere shouldn't be a reason to ignore it in annother place. Though if that is the view that has been taken previously and backed up by consensus, this should probably be a speedy keep.Narson (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This userbox is divisive, but all political userboxes are. It's no more divisive than many other political userboxes. Deleting all political uservoxes would be rejected Legitimate users (e.g. Russavia) use it, so deleting it because a banned user created it before being banned would probably be a bad idea. There's no reason to single this one out. How about moving it to another user's userspace, to remove the connection with a banned user? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I strongly dislike political userboxes, and like Black Falcon above, would prefer to ban them altogether; but previous consensus has always been to allow them, and as long as other political statements are allowed, this one should be. It's no different from many other existing userboxes: see Category:Political user templates. Terraxos (talk) 22:26, 1 September 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.