Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. User space is generally given a wide range of latitude. (see also WP:GUS). — xaosflux Talk 15:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic and similar userboxes

Procedural nomination, copied from the MFD talk page verbatim:

Could someone help me out and do a mass deletion for me? I don't know how to do a mass delete. The said requested deletions are these userboxes, which I believe to be inflammatory and offensive:

I apologize for this nomination anonymously, but I have locked myself out of my main account with a wikibreak. Thanks. 64.178.96.168 18:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • My own opinion is that these should be kept. There is nothing inflammatory about not being Muslim. I'm not Muslim; I'm Jewish. Does this really bother anyone reasonable? YechielMan 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I added a heading so this section shows up in the TOC on MfD. I support deletion as a not category. I could put all of them and many other similar ones on my user page. However should not these be moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion? --Bduke 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • TFD and MFD are both okay for userboxes in user space. Let's leave well enough alone. YechielMan 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually since they are technincally in userspace, MfD is the right place to go. CharonX/talk 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • keep these...they look fine to me. Nardman1 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD T1 ^demon[omg plz] 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Those are in Userspace, as you might notice, and a broad application of T1 is know to cause wikidrama, DRVs and general time wasting. Please elabortate why they are so bad that they must be speedy deleted instead of waiting for the closure of the MfD (unless, of couse, you expect that the boxes would survive this MfD and press for speedy deletion for that reason - but that would be assuming bad faith) CharonX/talk 01:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Oh *deity* I will never be *member of a religious group*. Not harmful as they are worded right now, I think. (Heck, I am a Christian, if you don't want to be one, none of my buisiness - didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition)CharonX/talk 01:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not inflammatory. I in fact am not Muslim; I am not Jewish; I am not Hindu—etc. etc. and so if someone wishes to share with the world these facts, they should be able to. Keep. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I can see a few instances (rare, but technically possible) where for instance a member of WikiProject (Religion X) wanted to make it clear that s/he him/herself was not in fact a participating member of that religious group without specifiying what beliefs they might actually have. I might acknowledge that they could be useless wastes of space otherwise, but there is an at least limited purpose to them. John Carter 15:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per John Carter. I can also see a few rare instances where someone who is an Arab might want to specify that they are not a Muslim. --Candy-Panda 12:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete as 'not' categories. I'm not a christian, I'm not a muslim, I'm not a buddhist, I am also not a communist, socialist, or anarchist, not a vegitarian, not a German and not a pet owner; how does that help us in any way? 'not' categories serve no useful purpose because they are potentially all-inclusive. If you ARE something, say it, and that will include all other possible exclusive nots, if you're an athiest, put up an athiest tag, and we'll KNOW you're not a chrisian, ect. Wintermut3 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm staying neutral on the userboxes themselves, but if they categorise (they don't curently appear to), then the categories will likely be deleted as "not" categories, per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Category inclusion, and consistant precedent at WP:UCFD. - jc37 06:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, these are almost as useful as the Wikipedia:Babel xx-0 levels, and besides, expressing that you are not of a given religion can be just as important of a statement as expressing that you are. — The Storm Surfer 09:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Utility or not, they're not in any way derogatory, inflammatory, or disrespectful. I'm in favor of sanitizing articles, but not what other wikipedians display on their userpages. vive et viva /Blaxthos 05:07, 5 May 2007 (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.