< April 5	April 7 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. --M@thwiz20 20 00:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English Football League[edit]

Template:English Football League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created the template myself from an article that was long standing as due to be merged. When I tried it is was baisically ugly, not that informative and too big. Delete it, there's nothing in it thats not elsewhere. Robdurbar 22:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then it can be put up for speedy deletion, I have done that for you.Flying Canuck 23:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've CSD G7'd it. --M@thwiz20 20 00:56, 8 April 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British TOCs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was nominted for speedy deletion using the ((db)) template. As this put all the articles it was inlcuded on into category:Candidates for speedy deletion it was inapropriate. Looking on the talk page it appears that there is major disagreement about what should and should not be included in the template and some/all of the editors feel it shoudl just be deleted. My vote is below Thryduulf 22:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I can understand the frustration, this is a useful template and getting more input into the discussion should help. If editors keep changing it without consensus then protection rather than deletion is apropriate, imho. Thryduulf 22:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitely needs reorganisation! This should be a useful template to include in relevant articles. Somebody needs to try and knock some sense into the editors concerned. --RFBailey 22:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is very frustrating what has been done by those who unilaterally edit without any discussion, but at this stage I agree that protection is the best option. Djegan 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above - some arguments over the content shouldn't result in the deletion of a useful template. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this template only neads some minor changes and deleting it isn't the way to go.
Keep Deletion is not the proper solution to a content dispute. Slambo (Speak) 11:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deletion is not to resolve disputes. --Terence Ong 13:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not the solution, although some consensus needs to be reached over whether some companies should be there. T.A Stevenson 16:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of train operating companies is of great use. However, perhaps something should be done to break TOCs into regions rather than service types. I'd say it needs discussing though - and even protecting to stop the nonsense that's gone on recently. Samluke777 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Samluke777 above, a list of TOC's without any annoying adverts or other information is very usfull at times Fkmd 01:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the discussion on the talk page, Hammersfan, who appears to be the original proposer of deletion, said "I say we just delete this template and start all over again" suggesting that even if it was deleted that it will get created again. seems worryinly like the deletion proposal was just trying to make a WP:POINT. Protection, and then discussion leading to consensus is what we need. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's useful for navigation around the TOCs, but should possibly be reorganised into different catergories
^Danny 19:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've just created a proposed new version of this template, which can be found here
- (Sorry, that was me yesterday evening. Oops. --RFBailey 07:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment If we do keep this, then it at least has to be renamed, because certain people will just not accept the Northern Ireland operators/services alongside those on the British mainland. It must be made clear that the template is for operators in the entire United Kingdom. Hammersfan 12.42 BST, 12/04/06.
Comment, what does this template have to do with tables of contents??? Angr (talk • contribs) 13:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- TOC = TLA = Train Operating Company. HTH HAND. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:30, 13 April 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AM and Template:PM[edit]

I only started using them because people started sticking them into articles I was editing. However the consistency in formatting that they provide is somewhat convenient. Weak keep. — jdorje (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Utterly pointless to have these templates floating around confusing new users and acting as targets for vandalism. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Subst first, of course. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strip the formatting, first, then subst it with a bot, then delete. — Apr. 7, '06 [04:29] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

delete as per above. Style of a.m. and p.m. is covered in MoS. DavidH 06:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is? Can you point me to a link? — jdorje (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link above. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (though Subst first) MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 18:48, 10 April 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NJ Devils[edit]

Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as per nominator. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 18:52, 10 April 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete John Reid 10:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Branchlist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Branchlist/Electronics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Branchlist/Electronics/Active component (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
...and everything else in Category:Branchlist
To take words out of FreakofNurture's mouth, "Stems from a fundamentally flawed perception of page management". These are feature creep, an attempt to make Wikipedia heirarchical and bring back Wikipedia:Subpages, and don't do anything that categories, normal navigational templates, See also sections, wikilinks, portals, wikiprojects, what links here, and list articles don't already do. Though test or mock-up templates for a proposed software change, they're repeatedly being placed in live articles. I wouldn't have a problem with them if they were kept out of live articles.

Terminate every single one of them with extreme prejudice, per related nominations. — Apr. 6, '06 [14:16] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
Delete per above --Andy123(talk) 16:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and modify till they are to everyones satisfaction. No one has come up with a proposal yet that has the same features. It does not produce a heirarchy but simple an overlay map for finding your way round a topic. Other large pages have the same thing- are we going to remove those as well? I think that would be a retrograde actiom.

Can we keep it if we promise not to use them in any more live articles until agreement on their utility has been reached? --Light current 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started the Root page concept three months ago and have put hundreds of hours into working to improve it, mostly with Light current. While there is opposition, it seeems to come from people predjudiced against all organisation of articles, and I have yet to see a single real reason for not using these templates, given that they do nothing to detract from the value of a page, and less to disturb its layout than existing templates which are approved. Some people who support it just use and modify it and their voice is not heard so loudly. As Light current says above, no one has come up with anything better, nor a good reason to get rid of it, given that it is no more now than an improved style for a navigation template that is neater and more effective and provides quick interlinking of pages in big topics. I too emphasise it does not create a hierarchy of pages, only a nested system of lists for easy navigation and oveseeing by editors. I also think it should remain as part of the history, since we have been told that similar attempts at organising page navigation have been made repeatedly in the past, and this has to be the most thorough attempt yet, with many pages of talk. --Lindosland 17:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out by a million people, this is just duplication of existing functionality, or worse yet, regression towards a hierarchical article structure. The software originally had hierarchies, but this was removed for a lot of very good reasons:
LC and LL seem to be the only people supporting this, and are repeatedly putting the templates into articles after being asked not to and being reverted by at least six people. — Omegatron 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting a template in an article is allowed. Being asked not to put templates on any article is not within the rules. On no article has persistent reversion been practised, and usually where a template was removed it was left removed.
  - That's becuase persistent reversion is forbidden, and grounds for being banned. It's called edit warring, and you're in violation for putting these templates into articles when they've been removed multiple times by others. You seem to have a consistently backwards understanding of our policies. Edit warring is bad; not good. Content forking is bad; not good. Hierarchies and subpages are bad; not good. — Omegatron 15:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You've been stubborn in refusing to understand that Root page is not about sub-pages, or hierarchy. It's primarily about helping helping coordinated editing of big topics. I've read the above material, and this is a very complex topic. I would point out that many of the problems identified in the above like 'only one level, why not unlimited levels', have been examined deeply and resolved. Root page represents a step beyond those references. A common objection in the above references was 'there are no rules for applying the concept'. We have provided the rules, like only one rootpage to any page, and only three levels.
  - This TfD demonstrates that everyone except you thinks this is about subpages and hierarchy. We already have tools for coordinated editing of big topics. "Only one rootpage to any page and only three levels" is completely arbitrary and inflexibly bad. The category system solved all the problems with your proposal before you made it. — Omegatron 15:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant, clutters pages (look how many times transformer was tweaked to try and fit one in),large, ugly, clumsy, vapid, arbitrary association of articles, un-maintainable, (did I mention redundant already?), distracting to users, and a poor substitute for links in the text and for categories. "Terminate with extreme prejudice", indeed. Categories map a topic perfectly well. The articles are wonderfully and subtly organized and we don't need a hammer-blow neon sign saying "Look here stupid". The "hundreds of hours" wasted on this by all concerned should have been spent proofreading, researching, finding PICTURES, checking FACTS - you know, ENCYCLOPEDIA WORK, not egoizing. --Wtshymanski 17:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not stated your above objection regarding 'clutter' at the proper place if I remember rightly. One person did, and I said I agreed. The rules were about to be modified in the light of this, as it became apparent, thanks to live trialling, that the effect on image placement was often a problem. A new rule is now in place at Wikipedia:Root page under 'image placement'. The template should appear alongside the 'see also' listing in the normally blank space.
Delete all per nom. And I am most certainly not prejudiced against all organisation of articles as most of my 20,000+ edits have been devoted to exactly that. CalJW 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry about your hundreds of hours, I really am, Lindosland, but you were warned (not by me) that you were wasting your time. The reason that you "have yet to see a single real reason for not using these templates" is that you choose not to see. For example, look at compact disc. Why would I want to jump from there to iPod or loudspeaker? Those links, like several others, are just a waste of space; valuable top-of-the-page space that we cannot afford to waste in a web-based medium. Now scroll to the bottom, and look at that "audio format" template. That's how organisation should be done. It's compact, doesn't get in the way, is highly specific, and doesn't imply a hierarchy - which your system does, despite what you say. --Heron 20:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The funny thing is, no one has ever said the above, about 'valuable top of page space', at Wikipedia:Root page, surely the proper place for it. I actually consider this a valid point, but it was proponents of nav and series templates who I let persuade me to use them, in the absence of arguments to the contrary! Why would you want to jump to loudspeaker? Because its an audio component like a CD player and an iPod! This is especially useful to editors for checking what has been covered and what has not, but it is also useful to users studying an entire field. --Lindosland 14:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons discussed above and elsewhere.--Srleffler 22:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and Wikipedia talk:Root page. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, As others have mentioned, while I appreciate the great effort you've put into it I feel that the concept would tend to typecast articles into one well-known domain or another. For example, someone here objected to the notion that the term 'filter' applied to the electronics domain. He made his case that they encompassed mechanical systems as well and then proceeded to rewrite a good number of articles to ensure that the broader perspective was heard. While it irked me at first, the guy was absolutely correct. I'd hate to think that casting articles under specific domain umbrellas or root pages would inhibit reformations like this.--Hooperbloob 23:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. I have run into similar things in optics, where articles have been written from some other point of view (esp. photography, opthalmology, and astronomy), which can be improved by generalizing them to include the optics approach and other uses of the same concept. The proponent of these branchlists proposes forking pages when this happens, creating separate articles for the same concept, reflecting the view of that concept from different fields. Ugh.--Srleffler 00:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Wtshymanski. The links within WP found in article content and the See also section are more than sufficient to find related articles. Especially when looking at this through the eyes of the casual user who is unfamiliar with wiki conventions, this makes things more confusing and difficult. Tijuana Brass 00:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. These do have some potential to make navigation easier (especially for new users of wikipedia who are unfamiliar with the workings of the category system), but the current implementation is more than a little clumsy. I vote to keep them in order to see if they can be improved upon. If not, torch 'em. -Fadookie ^{Talk | contrib} 06:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The Photon 13:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Addition of branchlists is rendering it impossible to format lead sections properly. The items on the list have often little relation to the article to which they are added, and there are important omissions. Difficult to get into and edit. --BillC 02:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - mako 02:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It just crowds up space. When I first saw it on the iPod page I was mad but I wasn't sure what to do. Thanks for bringing this to a vote. --Mboverload 03:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The deleted branchlist template seems to have been resurrected as Template:Electromagnetism. Like its predecessor, it seems to be trying to impose a dubious and arbitrary classification scheme. --Heron 12:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm? That's just a navigation template, which is fine. It's been around since 2004, so it's not a replacement. Neither Lindosland nor Light current have ever touched it. — Omegatron 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, sorry. Somebody moved that template from the middle to the top of Electromagnetism yesterday, and I wrongly assumed that it was new. --Heron 15:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is not valid under the rules for template deletion which are:
Proposal of a template for deletion may be appropriate whenever:
1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);
2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template;
3. The template is not used (note that this cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks, it may be used with "subst:");
4. The template isn't NPOV (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement);
5. The template does not clearly satisfy a criterion for speedy deletion (if it does, tag it with a ((db|reason)) and ask an admin to delete it - these do not require consensus).
I suggest that non of these reasons can be said to apply. The proposal is makes no reference to those rules, and furthermore, non of the reasons listed by objectors below constitutes an objection under the above rules. This is an attempt to terminate a policy proposal improperly while is is under active development. Please note that Wikipedia:Root page has been recently updated, nullifying some of the objections here (which are in any case not valid reasons for template deletion). --Lindosland 14:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly valid under 1, 2, 4, and 5. You keep modifying your proposal, but it's fundamentally flawed and will continue to be rejected. The only way you could modify it that would get approval is if you modified it to be just like navigational templates or categories, at which point it would also be rejected, for being redundant. — Omegatron 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one that was at Transformer illustrates the problem. Transformer has been grouped with: Resistor, Capacitor, Inductor, Diode, Varistor, Fuse, Polyswitch, Varicap, Varactor, Quartz crystal, Resonator and Ferrite bead. These are related topics for one whose interests are electronics. Mine are not; as a power engineer, I would want to see generator, electric power transmission, tap (transformer), substation, and others. Somone coming in on this from the electromagnetics aspect would want to see magnetic flux, voltage, current, Faraday's Law, and more. You cannot cater to all these fields; who gets to decide what goes into the branchlist? --BillC 18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd even say it falls under number three as well; after all, anybody could spread a template around and declare that it is "used." Not a good criteria except to point out templates that are obviously abandoned. Tijuana Brass 05:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot, main reason being intrustion creep and lack of support/wangi 09:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BillC above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw one of these on the LED page(which I watch) and deleted it. Few of the links in it were even remotely related to LED's, and it was right at the top. TimL 20:37, 12 April 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Speedycleanup[edit]

Delete as a hoax. I've never witnessed a "speedy cleanup" and I'm unlikely to see it happen any time soon. — Apr. 6, '06 [14:19] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
Delete per freakofnurture (lol). --Rory0 96 16:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Absolute crap. --Andy123(talk) 16:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - stupid and pointless. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's "crap" Please remain WP:Civil.23:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that "crap" is uncivil; but I shouldn't like to find this stuck to my shoe. John Reid 07:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a wiki oxymoron. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh heh. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN John Reid 07:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done so. "LOL"! 68.39.174.238 15:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would be nice to think that this would be useful, but unfortunately cleanups are rarely speedy. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 18:57, 10 April 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NCFCA Clubs[edit]

Delete I agree that the number of links does not justify a whole template. No ill-will towards the creator. --Mboverload 06:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute Pm shef's assertion that the organization is NN. It is a major forensics league that is growing by leaps and bounds and services a homeschooling community that has grown to 2.2 million American children. On the other hand, I am not sure whether individual clubs are encyclopaedic just yet and so I am not casting a vote here. I will say that there needs to be some kind of standard set for notability required - it can't just be a vote of every wikipedia user. There are many clubs and smaller organizations that have made themselves wiki pages, some of which are smaller than many NCFCA clubs.

Also, I thought the general idea behind Wikipedia was that so many articles could be compiled that one could find information on almost anything. To this end, it seems to me that notability shouldn't be too much of a factor.

Basically, while I am not going to cast a vote or argue either way on this particular topic, I do believe that at some point, someone needs to lay down the law on what is and is not notable instead of the somewhat vague and inconsistent guidelines currently in place. HomeschooledDebater 13:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also note that of the two pages which had originally been linked on the template, one, [[SWAT (debate club) was deleted in an AfD debate. Thus, the template now contains one link. pm_shef 17:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very well then... delete (no offense Nait - you can still put club pages on the other wiki) HomeschooledDebater 23:37, 11 April 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily delete per WP:CSD#Templates. -- ChrisO 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this template has recently tried to add it to a range of articles on the Second World War and the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. He says on the template's talk page that "it should contain Albanian actions as well, and demonization of Serbs in the West. Croats are villians, but are far from only Serb-haters, as evident on this page." As this comment indicates, it's deliberately meant to be POV, and given its inherently POV nature I don't think it will be possible to make it compliant with the NPOV requirements. ChrisO 07:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my attention drawn to Jimbo Wales' recent addition of a template deletion criterion to WP:CSD#Templates: "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory". As this template very clearly meets this criterion, I've speedily deleted it as suggested below. -- ChrisO 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Willing to change mind if anyone presents a reason why it should stay. --Mboverload 07:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can this be speedied, please? — Apr. 6, '06 [14:20] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
Delete per freakofnurture --Andy123(talk) 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ChrisO has engaged in attempting to remove pages related to Serbian suffering. He seems to want to get rid even of this tabulator. Why would there be tabulator for Holocaust, and not for Ustasha Genocide? There are plenty of related articles. If you dont want other Serb persecutions in the same tabulator, thats not the reason for deletion. Also, ChrisO's own tabulator about Scientology is heavily biased as to portray this religion in unflattering terms - need to look at that. In any case, I think this nomination is in bad faith, as ChrisO holds anti-Serbian bias. CeBuCCuCmeM 17:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template is totally point of view. It reaks of original research, making some totally outrageous connections. Some of the template's links even lead to unrelated articles (such as Croatian Spring, or the article about Hanging). --Thewanderer 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can a list of links be original research? that is nonsense. As for the link to Hanging, it should link to hangings in NDH, a method used in Ustasha genocide. The Ustasha genocide is a well established event, and so the tab is necessary to put these links together. If you see a problem in after WWII section, that may be adressed, but the tab has to have a valid reason to be destroyed. I would go so far to remind you that removing this tab is a sort of Holocaust denial - but when Serbs are in question, it seems that it does not count. Why are you trying to disintegrate information about Ustasha genocide that already exists in wikipedia? CeBuCCuCmeM 18:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You seem to have entirely the wrong idea about what Wikipedia is. I should add that your actions in sticking POV notices into templates that I've edited, in apparent retaliation for this nomination for deletion, is an act of extremely bad faith. -- ChrisO 18:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting it wrong. I think wikipedia should be ruled by rules, which apply equally to all. Just because you are admin does not mean you can push your POV. You answered that templates do not go into templates, and I accept that - so it should hold for ALL templates. Thus, you must agree that POV notice is not for templates. As what is POV and not, is another issue. I see your edits to Scientology as pretty POV. BTW I am not Scientologist. But thats unrelated issue. The important thing is to have rules, and to follow them in ALL cases. Policy - thats how things work. So, in my opinion, genocide against the Serbs is worthy of a template, since genocide against Jews is. Thats how I understand impartiality. The only thing obvious here is that you, ChrisO, are a POV pusher. CeBuCCuCmeM 18:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and change a bit--TheFEARgod 19:40, 6 April 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

April 6, 2006

Template:English Football League[edit]

Template:British TOCs

Template:AM and Template:PM[edit]

Template:NJ Devils[edit]

Template:Branchlist/Electronics

Template:Speedycleanup[edit]

Template:NCFCA Clubs[edit]

Template:Persecution of Serbs