Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Ideology

 __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The result of the discussion was:  Withdrawn by nominator. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Ideology

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

I propose the deletion of all userboxes listed on this page for the following reason:

Userboxes states:
 * Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.
 * Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman_4th_nomination for a discussion that ended in a specific userbox being deleted for the same reason. MarshallKe (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the motive behind this nomination. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I genuinely believe deletion of all political userboxes is a good move that is consistent with policy. I am not trying to illustrate a point or to disrupt Wikipedia, and I am certainly not in favor of the marriage userbox in the linked discussion. Please try to understand that I am completely genuine in this AfD. MarshallKe (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I should add that ad hominem reasoning is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions in Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions MarshallKe (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with that essay. My link regarding disrupting to make a point is a behavioral guideline and applies everywhere on Wikipedia. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So is WP:Assume good faith MarshallKe (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per what I said at ANI &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to admin it occurs to me that this is malformed because the page in question is only one of many. For this reason, and because this proposal has caused at least one bad faith accusation against me, I would like to delete this proposal. MarshallKe (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Many of these are justifiable as self-introduction and declaration of likely editing biases.  If you can say in in prose, why not in a userbox? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:38, 22 August 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.