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: keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oppose NATO invasion Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Obviously fails WP:UBCR, more specifically – "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)" and "Opinion pieces, particularly on current affairs or politics". The userbox expresses support for a leader known for the 40+ years of authoritarian rule, with almost non-existent concept of human rights under his regime. Additionally, the userbox is very obscure and not widely used, and it was created by an editor blocked for genocide denialism. In the end, it is overtly divisive and inflammatory. —Sundostund (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm baffled. I don't see at all anything in the userbox that indicates it expresses support for an authoritarian leader. All I see in the userbox is that it opposes an invasion of a country. That seems pretty straightforward, and being anti-war is not an altogether unreasonable stance for a Wikipedian to take. I suppose one could !vote to delete on account of it being created by a blocked user, but that's a separate matter. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The userbox expresses support for Muammar Gaddafi in an indirect way, by opposing the 2011 military intervention in Libya, which put an end to Gaddafi's rule over the country. There is no mention of Gaddafi's name in the userbox, but IMHO its overall message and intention is very clear. —Sundostund (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That reasoning doesn't follow. A Russian citizen could be opposed to the rule of Tsar Nicholas without also being a Stalinist. WaltCip-(talk) 14:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment→Keep - agree with WaltCip, the nom is claiming the userbox says something it doesn't. Also agree it could easily be viewed as an anti-war statement. - wolf 16:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination is biased in itself. Would an anti-Iraq War userbox also be deleted by this logic, as Saddam Hussein was authoritarian too? It certainly is not an extremist viewpoint. SK2242 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Are we seriously not allowing people to oppose wars now? Should we remove anti-Ukraine invasion userboxes as well? (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't buy the argument of supporting "a leader known for the 40+ years of authoritarian rule" and I don't agree that this violates UBCR. The text is too short to pass as an an opinion piece and the text should be pretty blatant propaganda/advocacy before NOTADVOCACY kicks in. Politrukki (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep I don’t think this is appropriate for Wikipedia in its current state because it’s clearly propagandistic/soapboxing based on the language used, but the position expressed is not particularly extreme or inflammatory. Dronebogus (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. nom is faulty logic. It's inferring something that is not necessarily implied. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:17, 15 May 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.