< September 8	September 10 >

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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can use ((sources)) instead. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 23:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but it seems very, very pointless. --Haemo 02:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this condition may be caused by systemic bias, but unfortunately there's not much that can be done about it. Labeling an article with it really doesn't help readers or editors, especially since it is a permanent sort of disclaimer (there is no guarantee sources may magically appear one day). Gracenotes^T § 06:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This template is not being used on any page at this time. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears this template is attempting to carve an exception out of WP:V, which states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If sources are out there and simply have not yet been found, then ((unreferenced)) should be used. If sources cannot be found, then the article should be deleted. There is really no need for this template, at least not one that comports with policy. -- Satori Son 00:10, 12 September 2007 (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 section.

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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These serve no purpose and are not being updated.michfan2123 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:OR since there is no official listing, and is not updated. Supertigerman 01:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I update the Top ten South American male tennis players template always. For me this is useful because I can see the ranking of my favorites tennis players. --Vokoder 13:25, 15 September 2007 (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 section.

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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template; only has three links. Each of these pages is already linked to the other, so the template serves no purpose at all.. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:15, 9 September 2007 (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 section.

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. Most of the keep arguments were invalid; this template does nothing ((NPOV)) doesn't. — Malcolm (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINTy inflammatory bad-faith template saying

"The neutrality of this article towards Russian version of Soviet history is disputed."

This template with racist overtones for article tagging was created by the user with history of creation such disruptive templates (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Notpropaganda.) --Irpen 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object the afformentioned allegation and ask that such a suggestive, and prejudicial comment, lacking WP:AGF, be removed from this discussion. --FR Soliloquy 22:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack striked out. Digwuren 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to comment on my wording but only I will strike anything out from it. --Irpen 21:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but your comments on Wikipedia are not yours, they're Wikipedias. However, in case you have concerns of being connected to a TfD nomination that has only one non-personal attack word, I have now also generously striken out your signature next to the nomination. Digwuren 21:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to report my comments at any board you like for other users to judge how warranted they are but only I will strike them out. Besides, if my comment was inappropriate, which it obviously is not, it would only obstruct my attempt to delete this nonsense template that you want to keep. --Irpen 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the parts previously striked out, under WP:RPA, and will use the appropriate board to report the violation. Digwuren 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not disrupt the survey but report anywhere you like. --Irpen 21:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. First of all, would you PLEASE stay civil. Thank you. Second of all. It was not done in bad faith. It is not intended to be pointy. It's not racist. It is just a clarifying template. We have lost many good editors. Russian, Estonian and everywhere else aswell. Just because of disputes like that. The template is intendend to clarify the scope of the dispute. And to warn editors to be ready for the dispute itself. It also calls for working towards NPOV for giving the russian version of the events equal weight. Suva 21:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what next clarification of disputes in template are we to see? "Disputed neutrality towards the Baltic nationalist version of history"? "Russophobic version"? "Zionist version"? "Antisemitic version"? Obviously created to inflame matters. --Irpen 21:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is created for articles where someone disputes the content claiming that it doesn't match with his russian sources (for example the old saying that it was liberation not occupation). When the article doesn't represent the russian POV with enough weight but presents colliding (western) version of history. You can't really deny that this is not like something new in wikipedia where western and russian versions of history disagree. Suva 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia has many disputes based on sources' having an institutional bias clash. Arab vs Israeli, libertarian vs authoritarian, feminist vs antifeminist. Besides, it is not Western vs Russian. For one sources are rather diverse and, secondly, Russia is not the "Eastern" country. --Irpen 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind other dispute tags being made aswell. Countries west of Russia can be considered western countries for Russia. Anyway I have said what I think, you have made your attacks towards me and my faith. Let other people have their saying now. Suva 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Template:National bias. There are many modern Russian sources which are perfectly acceptable. Although each nation's publications have their bias, I see no need to single out Russia. Perhaps Template:Soviet woudl be useful, as Soviet-era sources are on average highly influenced by censorship/political directives, but to be fair, we would need Template:POV Nazi, Template:POV Chinese, Template:POV 19th century, Tempalte:POV Imperial British and so on. Therefore, instead of creating many templates, I'd suggest creating a generic template that would indicate that given article is written mostly from sources originating in a single country/period and as such is likely biased toward those particular views.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The standard ((NPOV)) template is adequate for the job. --Carnildo 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be a good idea however, I think Canildo raises a very valid point. The regular NPOV template appears to do an adequate job. I also have seen a template that says something like "this section does not express a world wide view"... heck in the article probative, I simply put it down in italic at the top of the section. If there is a debate in regards to NPOV the regular template is probably sufficient for the above average North American inteligence. (statistically graded at the reading level of a grade 5) If the issue needs to be discussed in further details... a proper, civil, discussion should be expressed on the discussion page and linked with the NPOV template. Find another way to resolve your issues. --FR Soliloquy 23:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why have a neutrality disputed template for every possible form of non-neutrality issue? There's no point to this template, and the standard POV template reads better anyway. Cowman109^Talk 23:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; standard template is satisfactory for the purpose. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with above, ((NPOV)) does the job. Carlosguitar 00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, I would even delete the standard "NPOV" template and a couple of others. There is too much fight in WP around inserting and deleting these tags in articles. One should work to improve articles rather than label them in a highly arbitrary manner.Biophys 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ((POV)) does the job without the baiting. Explanations of why the editor is disputing the article's neutrality should be placed on the articles talk page, not on the template. --Farix (Talk) 02:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because many such templates could be created but the regular POV tag suffices for them all. Still, I must ask, since when are Russians a "race"? Wouldn't "xenophobic" work better as a term of righteous outrage? Biruitorul 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, per Piotrus. There are a lot of disputes propping up on Wikipedia because Russian version of history does not match the one that rest of the world has. This template can quickly sum up the nature of the dispute on top of the talk page and I see use for it in great many discussion pages where Irpen and his colleagues argue against well-sourced facts and articles. Perhaps "The neutrality of this article towards Soviet version of history is disputed." and name to "POV-Soviet". Sander Säde 03:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, renaming is not a bad option but if it's renamed I don't see any major difference between it and ((NPOV)) template. Alæxis_¿question? 05:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, there are genuine POV issues derived from multiple sources for which ((NPOV)) template applies, and unsourced POV issues derived from Russian nationalism. A distinction must be made. Martintg 05:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename ((NPOV)) does not the job since it's been misused by supporters of a minority viewpoint currently all over the place. however, naming this a Russian POV is out of the question, I think it's an insult to the people that have been murdered in Russia for political reasons since the era of Stalin. Therefore if we call it Soviet POV or Stalinist, that would do the job just fine I think. An alternative is my support the suggestions made by Biophys--Termer 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as divisive and inflammatory. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV template is just fine. Should we have such templates to all countries with complicated history? Redundant. - Darwinek 08:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary and potentially inflammatory (as, ironically, shown in this TFD). >Radiant< 08:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has become obvious that Suva and Co are here to disrupt Wikipedia by endlessly waging their nationalist-motivated wars. I am aware that those who voted "keep" or "rename" are getting increasingly active on IRC as well. What goes around comes around. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to actually show some proof? Would be first time ever for you. Sander Säde 08:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I use IRC, eat babies, sacrifice virgins and do other evil stuff like that, not to mention my long history of Nazi collaboration, xenophobia, racism, antisemitism and who knows what else. Thank you for your personal attack. I will repeat: I didn't make the template in bad faith. What happened with the WP:AGF. I guess I have to agree that the template wouldn't serve any good purpose which I expected it to serve: Make less good editors to leave the wikipedia or important articles. :( Suva 09:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in my opinion provoking statements like the one by Ghirla here are going to inflame the situation further and have actually inspired the creation of the tag in the first place.--Termer 09:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla in attacking "nationalists" (apparently, by definition incapable of objectivity or civility) proves the need for this template. And, frankly, "what goes around comes around" is a threat. Hardly civil behaviour. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carnildo: the existing template is sufficient. DrKiernan 08:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: totally (and obviously) redundant. We do not need to create special templates specifying each and every non-neutral point fo view that might exist in the world. Imagine if this spread beyond politics to religion, then to popular culture. I can just see us having templates saying "The neutrality of this article towards Heavy Metal is disputed", "The neutrality of this article towards Star Trek is disputed", or "The neutrality of this article toward Paris Hilton is disputed; it should be rewritten rewritten to give more weight to Lindsay Lohan's opinions." We have a general template for POV disputes, and that's all we need. Details about the dispute belong on the talk page. Xtifr _tälk 09:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Discriminatory template.Anonimu 09:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. - TexasAndroid 19:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Piotrus. --Hillock65 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ((NPOV)) is just fine. Carlossuarez46 22:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom and redundant. Pocopocopocopoco 01:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the ((NPOV)) template suffices.--Sefringle^Talk 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Piotrus. Not redundant, as this is a very specific type of "POV", as it relates to Soviet versions and outright fabrications of history, (often still) related as factual, from a regime which stated that the purpose of history is to serve politics. This is not just some lack of neutrality taking up sides with Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:11, 12 September 2007 (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 section.

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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All red link farms, and/or with no more than three blue links each (in both the Dongkuk and KT templates, one of those blue links is a redirect to another, so they only really link to two articles). The articles are all sufficiently interlinked anyway, so these templates serve no meaningful navigation purpose. No objection to recreating them when/if they become viable. PC78 20:54, 9 September 2007 (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 section.

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 no consensus. — Malcolm (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standardized to ((Infobox Settlement)) and upgraded to include maps when possible. — MJCdetroit 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. See original reply to closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 20:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Carlosguitar 00:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this template, which is far more functional than MJCdetroit's replacement, as it was tailor-made by request of the Wikiproject to meet the peculiarities of local government in this region. As is further clarified on the parallel discussion here, the map function is easily added to this template. Tewfik^Talk 08:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as superseded by ((Infobox Settlement)), and per strong precedent consensus in favour of standardisation in settlement infoboxes. Infobox Settlement can be adapted to satisfy the peculiarities of local government in this, as in other politically-disputed regions. — mholland (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was any decision taken on superseding local templates with global ones? Whatever might be potentially possible, the global template does not now fit the needs of a region where NPOV depends on a host of minutiae and nuance, despite the fact that the Palestinian template was deleted a month ago. Tewfik^Talk 08:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm generally in favour of standardizing infoboxes, it's also not right to impose it on folks who clearly don't want it. If the guys over at this Project feel that their own templates serves their needs better, then let's respect that decision. PC78 09:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tewfik--Sefringle^Talk 23:19, 11 September 2007 (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 section.

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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template has been superceded by "needs infobox" parameter of Template:Film and all working instances of the old template have been deprecated to the new format. — Girolamo Savonarola 19:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Template:Film is a worthy replacement, handling this parameter as well as several others. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reason. Cop 663 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no longer needed. --Beloved Freak 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the template is no longer needed with the parameter already in the film template. --Nehrams2020 01:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Film template now replaces and all articles moved. RWardy 11:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and they've all been converted to the proper template already. I think with a few more 'votes' an admin can just quick close this. gren グレン 00:10, 11 September 2007 (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 section.

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 Moved to different location, redirected to ((CompactTOC8)). Circeus 20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was forked from ((CompactTOC8)) with a new, clever functionality, which is now part of the other template, and all 3 uses have been converted. Circeus 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moot: Moved to Template:CompactTOC8/Dev1; it was clearly intended as a development sandbox for improvements to Template:CompactTOC8; there is at least one bug extant in its code (see last topic, as of this writing, on my talk page for details), so it should not be slated for deletion right now. When the bug is resolved and the fixed code implemented at Template:CompactTOC8, /Dev1 will be tagged for speedy deletion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I located and fixed that bug (I was accidentally using #ifeq: instead of #if:). Circeus 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now, I'm converting ((CompactTOC6))instances, many of which could actually be just ((CompactTOC)) (except for missing letters, which #6 does not handle anyway). Circeus 20:25, 9 September 2007 (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 section.

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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose infobox which is currently subst'd in the article it was created for (Goguryeo), and consequently has no transclusions. — PC78 17:36, 9 September 2007 (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 section.

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 and move ((Campaignbox Al aqsa)) to ((Campaignbox Second Intifada)). — Malcolm (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template seems to be redundant to the better designed ((Campaignbox Al aqsa)). I also recommend that ((Campaignbox Al aqsa)) be renamed ((Campaignbox Second Intifada)) to maintain consistency with the main entry. — Tewfik^Talk 09:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support, just make sure that all the information is inserted in the ((Campaignbox Second Intifada)) template. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment, i kinda like the structure of the 2002 template, i was wondering on perhaps creating a less constrictive template such as ((Arab-Israeli conflict timeline))which will can be better controlled and a better representative than a 'second intifada' template. just a thought. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:24, 12 September 2007 (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 section.

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 moved to MfD, the appropriate place for this type of request. Sebi _[talk] 09:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I'd like to ask you something. Do we need a userbox that says "yeah I have a crappy password that you could probably guess, but just because it's weak don't try it!" That's just asking for trouble. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? I can't tell if this is serious... it seems serious but it can't be. Did someone really put something in my userspace up for TfD because they thought using it was unsafe? 1)MfD is the place for that 2)I think there should be a valid reason to delete someone's userspace 3)it's so obviously a joke it scares me that someone could not see that. It pisses me off that I have to defend my userspace from my phone on a saturday night. At least leave a message on my talkpage before this if no disrespect is meant. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:05, 9 September 2007 (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 section.

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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned some time ago, these episode succession templates have remained unused. --Farix (Talk) 03:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost housekeeping. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 9 September 2007 (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 section.

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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:Poison, complete with misspelling. — cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to ((poison)), not transcluded on any mainspace pages. Sebi _[talk] 03:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and misspelled. -- JHunterJ 11:45, 9 September 2007 (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 section.

September 9

Template:Hardsource

Old Tennis Templates

Template:Jason Michael Carroll

Template:POV Russia

Chaebol nav templates (part 2)

Template:Infobox Palestinian Authority muni

Template:Needs film infobox

Template:CompactTOC8T

Template:Goguryeo Infobox

Template:Arab-Israeli conflict 2002

User:JohnnyMrNinja/Lame password

Anime episode nav templates

Template:Poisen