Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 17

17 March 2011

User:NYyankees51/heartbeat – Keep deleted, but do not endorse decision. Many of the "overturn" !voters suggested that it should go to MfD; however, as several of the "keep deleted" !voters point out, that would lead to pointless bureaucracy. The reason for not endorsing the deleting admin's decision is that the bureaucracy that went into this DRV could have been reduced with a conventional MfD nomination in the first place. The option to recreate a modified version of the userbox is open, as is the option to nominate said userbox on MfD should the occasion arise. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:NYyankees51/heartbeat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) An editor changed my userbox without my permission and acknowledged that he went over the line. I reported it to WP:ANI here. A discussion ensued on my talkpage about the userbox and I changed it at the request of several users. However, User:Bishonen deleted and salted the userbox, citing consensus at ANI and claiming WP:NOTSOAPBOX applies. I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is not the best argument, but my userbox was no more controversial than any other userbox. It was stating a simple scientific and medical fact. It did not contain advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, an opinion piece, scandal mongering, self-promotion, or advertising as per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Thanks for your consideration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NYyankees51 (talk • contribs) Requesting temporary undeletion I'd like to know what it was before commenting further. LiteralKa (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Done. Prodego talk 14:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Comment. Thanks, Prodego. I've explained my reason for the deletion on my page; I'm crossposting it below for convenience. In my opinion, I had good reason to speedy delete that userbox. Personally, I dislike all political userboxes, and therefore dislike all or nearly all of NYyankees51 boxes; but that wasn't the reason I deleted the "heartbeat" box. Political boxes are currently allowed, and I go by that, not by my personal opinion. The reason for my deletion was instead that I don't think the heartbeat box is a userbox at all. Consider the definition on Wikipedia:Userboxes: A userbox is a small colored box designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles. The userbox definition will perhaps stand some stretching—many boxes are social rather than being anything to do with collaborating effectively, and the community seems to like it like that—but not this much. The main problem is that the heartbeat box is not a communicative notice about NYyankees51; it's more like a polemical statement on a forum (compare WP:NOTFORUM). Socially, it's extremely aggressive, and I'm quite unimpressed by NYyankees51's defense that it's merely "medical fact" etc. Sorry, NYyankees51, but there is no way you can be unaware of how touchy and inflammatory this issue is. My WP:AGF will only go so far. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC). Overturn This is not a clear enough issue for speedy. The discussion at ANI IMHO did not constitute a propper deletion discussion even if you believe there was consensus. This should have been discussed an an WP:MFD for true consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Question - Supposing I wanted to post a photo of a woman lying on a morgue slab due to having botched an abortion during the "coat hanger days". Would that be acceptable? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC) IMO, no. But I don't think it should be speedied either. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC) overturn and send to MfD. No speedy criteria fits and there is no reason not to wait for MfD. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Support deletion, for reasons given here: [1]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Deletions that occur outside usual processes must be entirely uncontroversial. Clearly this is not the situation in this case and while I accept that Bishonen's intentions were good, the deletion was an abuse of admin tools and Bishonen would be advised not to act in a similar way in future. The comments on whether this is or is not a userbox and whether it is suitable is entirely an opinion and not supported by current policies or the consensus in the ANI discussion. Overturn and send to MfD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Polemics are always based on an opinion, and that's the problem here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Support deletion Not a forum and all that. This has zero to do with building an encyclopedia. RxS (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Support deletion As RxS said. Has no reason to exist here other than to cause disruption. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC) support deletion per JoeSperranzza andRxS - cannot see how this fits into the guideline for acceptable userboxes Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Support deletion It clearly does not fit the definition or purpose of a userbox. No matter how dear a cause is to person's heart, a Wikipedia user page is not the place to promote such causes, particularly when they are known to be related to controversial or inflammatory topics. It is utterly disingenuous of the author to claim that the juxtaposition of image and text is "a simple scientific and medical fact". I also have problems in stretching AGF to the statements claiming that the box as a whole "did not contain advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, an opinion piece, scandal mongering, self-promotion, or advertising as per WP:NOTSOAPBOX", when it quite clearly contains almost all of those elements – and everyone here knows that. There's no point in wasting more time on an MfD for process' sake as the deletion was well within policy. --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion per the rationale given by the deleting sysop [2]. To my mind this userbox is not a simple expression of a pro-life position rather it is an aggressive statement designed to create drama and provoke others. Further, Bishonen's action was appropriately bold. Lovetinkle (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Overturn: Fits no criteria for speedy deletion. ANI is not where deletions are discussed, give it a turn at MFD. Buddy431 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC) So there can be a whole other lengthy debate over its "encyclopedic value"??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion - IAR applies. MfD will only extend the drama, especially given the stance of the userbox. Good delete, userbox was clearly not appropriate or valuable to the project. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion. This isn't a userbox; it's a pro-life bumper sticker. It seems rather obviously designed to advance a partisan point of view on a contentious topic, and it's actually a bit insulting to our intelligence to pretend that it's simply a disinterested observation about human embryology. I don't see any point in throwing up additional roadblocks or hoops for admins who delete material inappropriate for Wikipedia. The demands for process for the sake of process are exactly why this site is, ultimately, doomed. More to the point, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics#Abortion contains a wide selection of userboxes which, whatever their failings, at least meet the actual definition of a userbox. If one feels absolutely compelled to proselytize on the subject, those should be more than sufficient. MastCell Talk 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Support deletion. This contentious statement exists in the userbox without context, cited source or rebuttal. Combative assertions do not belong in an encyclopedia, even on a userpage. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Support deletion. How is this userbox different from having the text part of the user's page? If that statement is permitted on a user page, then you don't need the userbox; if it isn't, then the userbox shouldn't exist. -- llywrch (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC) By that reasoning all userboxes should be deleted. How is having any userbox different to having the text part of the user page? Reyk YO! 20:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Comment If my userbox must be deleted, I only ask that you be consistent in your application of policy. That means deleting most everything on this page. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC) You already mentioned "I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is not the best argument". JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC) There are times when WP:WAX is a relevant argument. This is one of those times. Reyk YO! 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC) On the other hand, NYY, you may be on to something. You nominate 'em and we'll do our best to delete 'em. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Support deletion per SOAPBOX and POLEMIC. A review of NYY's primary editing is insightful; lots of soapboxing and polemics: Susan B. Anthony List, Bobby Schilling, Restoring Honor rally, Talk:Restoring Honor rally, Lila Rose, Talk:Lila Rose, March for Life, Republican Party of Virginia, Conservative Political Action Conference, Live Action (organization), Talk:Live Action (organization), Abby Johnson (activist). I also find irony; "I'm on your side" amidst declaiming WP:BATTLEGROUND re Crisis pregnancy center. So, it would seem we have yet another political partisan not here to build the project, but to import their real-world POV. nb: I would support the deletion of most user boxes; at least Kelly had that right. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Personally, I'm thoroughly pro-choice, but this speedy makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. I see there's a sudden influx of users who normally inhabit AN/I, and I welcome that, but I also think that in view of this influx, there might need to be a little education about DRV and how it works. If this is closed by one of the regular DRV closers, then AN/I-style quickfire pile-on opinion statements might not cut quite as much ice as you think. DRV's role is to see that the deletion processes are correctly followed, which is why we traditionally take a dim view of "IAR speedies". I think most DRV regulars would accept that there could be times when an IAR speedy was appropriate, but was this one of them? Wikipedia isn't censored, and although the article space must be strictly NPOV, it's right that a degree of soapboxing is tolerated in userspace. In any speedy deletion save the very clear-cut ones, there's (quite rightly) a presumption that we will provide FairProcess to good-faith users on request. It's not enough that we make the right decision: we must be seen to make the right decision. So the starting point is that this case belongs at MfD rather than as a speedy, unless there's a genuine policy basis for it. The background and context is also relevant. Sue Gardner begins a discussion here which is partly about the extent to which the social aspect of Wikipedia can be enhanced in order to build a community. That discussion has yet to reach any conclusions, but we can hope that during the seven days of this DRV (and during any subsequent MFD), a consensus could begin to emerge that might inform the final decision we make. Against that background, we have various arguments to endorse the deletion being raised under the unconventional heading "Support deletion". These arguments are generally very brief, phrased in the emphatic declarative, and either don't have anything to do with the criteria for speedy deletion, or else misapply a rule (such as the various suggestions that it's uncited). To be clear: userboxes don't have to have anything to do with building an encyclopaedia. And they don't have to be cited. Personally, I have a userbox that tells you my age. It has nothing to do with the encyclopaedia and you won't find my date of birth in any reliable sources. I think that characterising this userbox as "aggressive" is unhelpful hyperbole. It's not aggressive or combative. It's an opinion statement phrased as a question. In that context, I think the various remarks above about combative assertions not belonging on Wikipedia are rich with unintended irony. All in all I'm of the view that we need to overturn this. Let it cool down for the full seven days of the DRV, then send it to MFD, ideally with a note in the header reminding the MFD participants that this should be a respectful and collegial discussion. Because this is a collaborative encyclopaedia and if someone goes away thinking they haven't had a fair hearing, then our processes have failed us.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC) That was a very thoughtful and thought-provoking comment - thanks for that. Since you mention Sue Gardner's comments on retention, I'll take the opportunity to go a bit meta. I think that one of the biggest turn-offs for new (and existing) users is the ever-increasing bureaucratization of Wikipedia. It's not a lack of process that drives people away - it's an excess. The fact that even obviously correct actions can be (and usually are) dragged out through innumerable bureaucratic processes burns people out. But that's just my take. Anyhow, thanks for your comments. MastCell Talk 01:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Well, I can see that this is "obviously correct" to you. But equally, I can also see that it's not "obviously correct" to NYyankees51—and I can see why it isn't obviously correct to him, too. This goes back to what I was saying about FairProcess. Contributors don't get much recognition or reward for their work on Wikipedia, but if they're good faith contributors, then in a dispute, they do get the right to a fair hearing before their peers. Unfortunately, if you're going to have a fair hearing then you have to have a process, so a certain amount of bureaucracy is part of the price we pay. I do understand the urge to get to the right result quickly, but I also think that trying to drive a superhighway through the winding paths and lanes of collegial discussion between good faith editors is usually a mistake that does more harm than good.—S Marshall T/C 01:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Endorse deletion per NOTSOAPBOX which is very clear: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." (emph added). Endorse speediness per NOTBUREAUCRACY. RexxS's analysis is spot-on. NYyankees51's description of the box as a "simple scientific fact"[3] is disingenuous and as I see it, continuing to press the matter amounts to tendentious editing that should lead to sanctions if the pattern repeats. I also have concerns with NYyankees51's overall editing history as described by Gold Hat. While the problems I've looked at probably aren't severe enough to warrant a more general editing restriction yet, I'd urge NYyankees51 to branch out into less contentious topics for a while. As for the neutrality of the userbox itself, remember that the ANI thread started with a report of an edit by Dragonfly67[4] that (while ill-advised for other reasons) pointed out the propagandistic nature of the box's contents. And with due respect to Sue Gardner, this is the kind of "social editing" that we don't want to attract more of. Users who want Myspace know where it is. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC) See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics (2nd nomination). Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Keep deleted. The removal of CSD T1 yet again seems ill-considered. We'd probably still be having this debate even if it was still on the list, but at least we might be spared much of the angst. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Overturn – Userboxes are trivial. I don't see how an userbox could seriously harm Wikipedia or its users. Wikipedia user are entitled to holding views, although they should realize that Wikipedia isn't a blog or a hosting site. If DragonflySixtyseven really believed that this userbox was a big enough deal to warrant deletion, then he should've sought a second opinion at a MfD. NYyankees51, on the other hand, made the mistake of escalating the conflict. The conflict could've been resolved through an one-on-one discussion with DragonflySixtyseven. As seen in the userbox's history, DragonflySixtyseven didn't revert NYyankees51's restoration of the userbox. NYyankees51 even said that "[DragonflySixtyseven] admitted his actions were over the line." The conflict should've been resolved there, but NYyankees decided to involve more users in what I suspect to be a bid to impeach or punish DragonflySixtyseven via the AN/I. No one goes to the AN/I just to complain; they also expect action, and the only action NYyankees could've expected was DragonflySixtyseven being punished. This, of course, backfired and lead to the deletion of userbox. If NYyankees had kept the conflict small and between two individuals, we wouldn't be here. I'm just saying this so that NYyankees could pinpoint where he went wrong and learn the value of subsidiary. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC) "Serious harm" is not the only reason why something might be deleted - it's potentially offensive, polarizing, contrary to policy, and not helpful to the goal of building an encyclopedia (although it certainly builds drama). Your comment about Wikipedia not being a blog or a hosting site is dead on. As to the rest of your commentary, it's likely better suited to NY's talkpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC) People have to accept that they're going to be offended by another person's views and move on, especially on the Internet. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC) You're right, Michaeldsuarez. I shouldn't have escalated it. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC) It's okay. My comment was a little over the top. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Tentative overturn Is it a proven, generally accepted fact that an unborn baby's heart begins to beat just 21 days after conception? If not, then the problem I see is not with the opinion of the userbox itself (everyone is entitled to non-attacking opinions; I don't see anything wrong with an unobtrusive statement of beliefs because that discloses any potential COIs/NPOV issues) but how the message is conveyed. I more strongly support a reword to something like, "This user believes his/her heart began beating 21 days after he/she was conceived". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Overturn but send to MfD, largely per S Marshall, Hobit, etc. on process grounds. --joe deckertalk to me 03:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Overturn and send to MfD. This DRV is turning into MfD anyway, so that's really the place for it. Reyk YO! 09:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC) List at MfD. Bad IAR (no over-riding need, and then disputed). The deletion violates the clear text at teh top of WP:CSD. Neutral on the merits of the deletion. Unimpressed that the picture (70 days) didn't match the caption (21 days). Tis is misleading, tending deceitful. This userbox is almost an essay, and probably would work better as an essay. As an essay, it would be deleted as unrelated to the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse Deletion Not much else to say. WP:UP#POLEMIC is pretty clear. The use of the 70 day embryo picture when talking about its heart beating at 21 days shows well enough its not meant to categorize but be a platform for WP:SOAPBOXing. -- ۩ Mask 12:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Overturn contingent on modification I don't think this userbox is appropriate, but just zapping it out of existence goes too far. NYY has already made a good faith attempt to move in this direction by removing "before your mother even knew she was pregnant" because of the outlandishness of that claim. I'd encourage NYY to go even further and make the box about him/herself rather than a blanket statement, much like Fetchcomms suggests above. I'd also be interested to know where that photo comes from? It looks rather... "enhanced" to me. Arbor8 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Overturn and send to MfD I don't view this userbox as an appropriate use of userspace, as it crosses the line between identifying the user as a supporter of a particular viewpoint and actively advocating that viewpoint. Having said that the deletion was out of line. We have a deletion policy, and administrators are expected to stick to it apart from exceptional circumstances. The userbox did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria and a brief ANI discussion does not establish consensus for deleting things in userspace (the proper place for that is MFD). Whether the page met the definition of "userbox" is irrelevant. What matters is that the page didn't qualify for summary deletion. Hut 8.5 14:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion - A userpage should be something about you, sure, but "about you" in the context of "you" as a Wikipedia editor. Not a soapbox from which to express personal points-of-view on contentious social issues. It adds nothing of value to the Wikipedia to know that NYyankees51 is in the anti-abortion faction, and serves only to be divisive. The project is improved by its removal. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion. I say this even though I find S Marshall's analysis to be very thoughtful and worthy of serious consideration. And I think that the way we got here, by way of an AN/I report of some rather silly behavior, to be far from ideal. But this userbox was entirely out of scope, deliberatively provocative to the point of being, knowingly, disruptive. It seems to me to be unreasonable to claim that the box might have been, or have the potential to easily become, an appropriate one, and likewise unreasonable to claim that the matter is sufficiently subjective to require going back to a deletion discussion. It is absolutely not an overextension of IAR to invoke IAR when doing so prevents disruption of the project, and that is what this deletion did. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Comment. NYyankees51, while I think the deletion was a bit hasty, I also think you ought to go back and look at [5] and [6]. If you had kept with your stated intent and not recreated the controversial userboxes that you had removed, the issue under discussion here in this deletion review would not exist. I'm not sure why you keep surrounding yourself with controversy -- you've already been blocked twice in the 2 months since accepting HJ Mitchell's deal to lift your indefinite ban for socking. As he said, he stuck his neck out when he unblocked you. Don't repay the good will he showed you with behavior that may have people wondering if unblocking you was a mistake. Mojoworker (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Hi Mojoworker, I do appreciate your concern (I mean that). I do not surround myself with controversy intentionally and I make all my contributions in good faith. I admit that because I defend them so vociferously it may be hard to see my intent. I would not have created the userbox if I knew it would cause these problems. I just took issue with the fact that it was speedily deleted even though I had already changed it to accommodate the concerns of others (see here). And I have heeded your concerns, see here and my most recent editing, which has not been quite so aggressive in nature. In any case, this page is a discussion about the userbox, not my editing. I'd be happy to continue the conversation on my talk page. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I'm confused on the history that Mojoworker mentions. Is this a recreation of a deleted userbox? If so, speedily dispatch it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I said I would remove all the userboxes I was displaying from my user page, but I put them back soon after. The userbox in question was not a recreation. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Weak overturn While I think a speedy was probably wrong in terms of procedure, the box is likely to be deleted at MfD. So I could advocate sending it to MfD with the knowledge that a deletion discussion would have a foregone conclusion. Protonk (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Very weak WP:BURO keep deleted. This is essentially a speedy deletion under the old CSD criterion T1 which was removed following a well attended discussion.[7] If consensus is that it is proper, then re-adding T1 or a similar criterion to CSD is what is needed not IAR deletions. On the other hand, this userbox does not have an encyclopedic purpose and would probably be deleted at MfD. Usually, I'd say to send it for a discussion, but in this particular case the comments above have convinced me that there is no realistic chance of anything but a delete outcome. In such a case, prosess for its own sake is neither necessary nor helpful. That is speedy deletion rather than sending to MfD may have been the wrong call initially but now that it had been done sending to MfD for another seven days is not a worthwhile use of resources in the face of a reasonably clear consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) List at MfD. There is consensus here that the ultimate fate for this userbox is deletion. I concur with this view for the many reasons already given, especially that this userbox is not a statement about a user. However, S Marshall is correct that the deletion didn't follow procedure. Therefore, the deletion should be overturned and the matter sent to MfD. However, I would urge NYyankees51 to see the light here and agree to immediate deletion to save us the trouble. There has been more discussion on this page than most MfDs, so the "day in court" has been achieved, albeit in the wrong forum. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Isn't this lengthy debate here functionally equivalent to an MFD? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Of course, but the policy doesn't allow for that. I would support changing the policy, but we have to go by what we have today. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Then this should be closed, an MFD should be opened, and all these comments should be moved to it. And by the way, it IS advocacy, despite the poster's claim that it isn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Yep, that's what "List at MfD" means as spelled out in the instructions for this process. The direct transfer of comments might be complicated because so many are inter-twined with the out of process initial deletion. We should have a link back here for sure, as well as a forward link so that those who have this page watch listed can easily refactor their comment onto the MfD page. However, it would be most considerate for NYyankees51 to save us the trouble per WP:SNOW. I agree that it's blatant advocacy per WP:DUCK. I have other concerns about it being highly disruptive for a number of users, myself included, but I'd rather not get into that when there are so many clear cut reasons for deletion. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Linking back here is probably better, yes. Ironically, if he were to change it from the current in-your-face approach to something like "I support the pro-life agenda", then it would more likely be acceptable, as it would square with many of the other "This user is..." types of boxes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) This is supposed to be a review of the deletion process, not a review of the content itself. It has turned into a content review. I hope this will be transferred to MfD so I can defend the merits of the box and be given the opportunity to change it. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC) There's nothing stopping you from changing it right now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC) That would interfere with the deletion process review. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC) No, it wouldn't. Change it to something acceptable, and the whole megillah goes away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC) That would be acceptable. Changing to something like "this user is pro-life because an embryo has a beating heart at 15-days" would probably moot this whole discussion, though I speak only for myself. Hobit (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Not for me. Anything with "because..." is a soapbox. Plus, I have my doubts that is the real reason that the user is pro-life. The beating heart thing is trying to sway others to their point of view and we really don't want to go there. Just say that you're pro-life and be done with it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC) There are many reasons I'm pro-life, and this is one of them. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Are you inclined to have a userbox for each reason? Or is it sufficient to say, "This user supports the Pro-Life agenda" or whatever? That would square with acceptable userboxes such as "This user is a Communist", "This user is an Atheist", "This user is a Polyanna", or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion Not a soapbox should apply. Eusebeus (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion This userbox tells me nothing about this user. It's just a statement with a misleading picture. If the user wants to state on his user page that he or she is prolife, fine. Say it but say it clearly. The deletion may have been out of process but we have WP:IAR for a reason. I doubt this would be kept after an MfD discussion. Process for the sake of process is stupid. AniMate 20:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.