Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User dislikes Autism

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: delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User dislikes Autism[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have anyone review to Keep or Delete. Shockingman173223 (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not transcluded to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No clear reason for deletion provided. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not useful for the Wikipedia community. Also, it's purpose seems to be to demean those with Autism as is done by some to the Handicapped community. This template seems to be uncivil, inflammatory, or substantially divisive, see WP:UBCR. This is certainly not a humorous template. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is no clear reasoning provided; however per WP:NOTBURO I’m still voting delete per the fact it’s unclear if this is supposed to be “this user dislikes living with Autism” etc. or “this user doesn’t like autistic people”. Dronebogus (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless I'm missing something Shockingman173223, created the page and tagged MFD in the same breath? I'm confused.Skipple ☎ 01:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CSD U1 Shockingman173223 created the page and nominated it for deletion, so I assume they want the userbox deleted? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:U1. Keep if the nom is just looking for a review (thanks CX). I don't think it violates UBCR; my understanding is that it's from the perspective of someone who is autistic and is frustrated with that. It's difficult to interpret the box as "user dislikes autistic people"—autism is not a type of person. I suppose one could argue it's expressing distaste for autism as a disorder or affliction, which is a controversial take but not grossly divisive, imv. Ovinus (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Revised 08:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Shockingman172223 created this but isn't sure if it violates userbox policy, so they just self-nominated it for MfD for community "review" as said in nomination statement. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep unless wanted otherwise by creator: Personally, I think it is in good faith, kind of "I have autism, and I don't like it", though I agree with Dronebogus's reasoning about clarity above. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I actually have a form of Autism here and can relate to those who dislike it. "Autism" is very wide definition which immediately brings to mind for some those who are lower functioning. The reality is that this causes everyone including those with higher functioning abilities to be lumped into the same boat. That being said... this template is poorly worded, it could say "This user dislikes their Autism" or "This user has Autism and dislikes it". Assuming good faith my guess is that the template is against the disorder and not the people born with it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shockingman173223: Could you please explain what exactly you are trying to accomplish here? Also, please let us know if you'd be willing to reword the userbox to clarify the meaning, as several people have suggested. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close - Someone who wants this deleted can go back and re-nom this. But the current nomination does not state a valid delete reason.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Divisive and confusing. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Sundostund (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2022 (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.