Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JustPhil/Userboxes/Obama

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 snow Keep. As a purely personal thing, I'm fairly sure the encyclopedia would be better off without any of this type of userbox, but that's a discussion for another day; this was a bad-faith nom and thus is speedily kept. Black Kite 18:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:JustPhil/Userboxes/Obama, User:Axmann8/Userboxes/McCain

Redundant, unnecessary, political bias. Fails to conform to WP:SOAPBOX. -Axmann8 (Talk) 11:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not attack anyone, and opinions are proper in userboxes. If an opinion can be stated on a userpage in text it should be allowed in a userbox. There are a great many userboxes which express political opinions and the precedent here has been that they are allowed. Collect (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see anything being wrong. If we delete this, why not delete the userboxes that say "This user is a proud National Socialist"?- Just Phil 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - userbox which serves only to inhibit co-operation, with no encyclopaedic purpose. Wily D 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really??? I am curious why the nom doesn't nominate his own creation [1] with an identical political end?--Adam in MO Talk 14:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
whatever the fate of this one, its mirror image deserves the same. I've added it to the nomination. henrik•talk 14:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's perfectly acceptable for our editors to make a neutral expression of their political biases, because that way you know what their political biases are. The behavior of these two editors - creating opposing userboxes and then trying to maneuver to have the other's deleted - is certainly troubling, but it doesn't change the fact that such userboxes ought to be allowed. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bad-faith nomination by an editor with a history of politics-related disruption. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He also nominated this userbox for deletion as an article and an image. I removed it from the files for deletion, since it doesn't count as such. Sorry if that breaks the rules.- JustPhil 16:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tricky thing to get right, this nomination business. I've deleted the orphan deletion discussion, thanks for removing the erroneous IFD and AFD discussions. henrik•talk 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cosmic Latte. This seems a little politically motivated to me. Brothejr (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad-faith; user apparently has a 'thing' with Obama. HalfShadow 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep VERY bad-faith nomination by a user who has been blocked 3 times in his short term here due to extreme political POV-pushing, and is just mad because he wasn't allowed to keep his VERY LARGE "Nobama" thingie on his own page. P.S. Keep BOTH userboxes. They're harmless. P.P.S. I have just posted yet another complaint against Axmann on WP:ANI, as he was unblocked on the grounds he would stay away from Obama stuff, and he just can't or won't do keep his promise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most of the above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~and merge the two userboxes~~ both, we have many userboxes for editors to self declare a bias, if we deleted either or both of these two we would be setting a precedent that could spark a timewasting, and counterproductive userbox war. Were Spiel Chequers 18:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone please close this per WP:Snow.--Adam in MO Talk 18:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination by a user trying to make a point. Dayewalker (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.