< July 2	July 4 >

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 already deleted. >Radiant< 12:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete redlink template due to discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Shively and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canden Jackson. hbdragon88 20:30, 3 July 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is extremely specific to a particular organization. It was being used in only one article - Institute of Management Technology. The other two articles (about branches of the same organization) that were linked to from this template have been redirected to the aforementioned parent article. The template is not transcluded anywhere now, so can be safely deleted. Thanks, Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:42, 3 July 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 speedy delete per request by its author. --ais523 17:10, 4 July 2007 (U T C)

Several: 1. Overly long name 2. Isn't in English 3. "Where will it be used, and what is it specifically?" are questions that blare in my mind. Suggested action - Deletion, or at least translation if it ends up being useful/important. — Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it. The whole point of a stretch of railtrack is the places that it goes to. Stuttgart and Bad Cannstadt are both place names that resonate deeply with anyone interested in the origins of the petrol driven motor car and therefore definitely places that merit significant coverage in an anglophone work of reference. Presumably someone has or shortly will provide(d) an entry on this stretch of line which also appears to interface in many respects with other parts of the network in a part of the world where rail travel is very much seen as part of the future (which our stateside friends who still enjoy 'gas' at way under five dollars a gallon may find somewhat unfathomable). The template could presumably also be adapted for other stretches of line where needed. However, the image will for anglophones be usefully enhanced when someone gets round to translating the bits that are not place names into English Regards Charles01 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imported this from German wikipedia to make the line diagram in Filsbahn work (which still needs some translation), but I have pasted the code directly into the table so the template is no longer necessary. Germans like long compound nouns names and apparently file names.--Grahamec 01:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a ((db-author)) there? if it is, please paste that on the template. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Grahamec 03:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. thanks. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:14, 4 July 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. Mike Peel 02:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template for a long dead project. — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero transclusions; not needed. Shalom ^Hello 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused template for an unworkable idea. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per Black Falcon. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:34, 4 July 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 deletion. There is no way this template could ever be stable. Even with a link to an entire list of actions labelled as state terrorism, there would be endless discussions (read:edit warring) over which events are important enough to mention in the body of the template. This is not appropriate for a navbox, and as such, should go. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not helpful or encyclopedic and serves no benefit. Only used in two articles. — MONGO 07:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Why is not helpful or encyclopedic? .V. _[_Talk|Email] 07:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- MONGO you deleted the entries for this template[1] Along with ultramarine [2][3][4] Tbeatty [5][6][7], and Tom Harrison [8]. This is really sad--delete the article to the point that it has no content, then put it up for deletion for the reason that it has no content. I am going to request this template be kept speedy keep. I see the four of you, who all have very stong matching POVs deleting a lot of work which doesn't match your own pet POV, but I dont see you contributing much at all.216.60.70.61 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have 300 article starts to your, what 25 edits total...get a username if you expect recognition here. --MONGO 05:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way to dodge your bad behavior. I removed your personal attack. I will report you to WP:ANI if you violate WP:NPA again. I am not questioning your additions in other articles, I am questioning your deletions in this article, we are talking about this template. 216.60.70.152 23:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, please don't bite the newbies... hostility isn't appropriate, and even if they don't have a username, they can still be a worthwhile contributor. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the closing Admin, users: Tbeatty, Tom harrison, MONGO continue to delete large portions of this template while the AfD is ongoing. This makes the template look have less relevence than it really does, and may effect the votes of other editors. 69.153.81.182 19:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — 69.153.81.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, the template points to articles, the same as the Christianity template does. No good reason to delete. Murderbike 08:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not now, the article links keeps getting deleted. // Liftarn
Delete This category is going to become nothing but lightning rod for fighting and edit warring, and to what end? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep template serves an imporant purpose, pointing to articles. Currently, there is a proposal and work in progress to expand the State Terrorism series to several more countries. This is a legitimate and noteworthy subject that will keep growing. The template serves a good purpose.Giovanni33 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a navigation template with no articles to navigate. One link will be the page the reader is on, the other should be in See also. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that this editor deleted several of the links on this template. See above. 216.60.70.61 23:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep navigation template - useful - delete articles, not useful POV pushing. But have it link to all the other state terrorism articles as well. The Evil Spartan 18:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other articles might be included? If it's just those two, it seems like 'See also' is the place to put the one the reader is not already viewing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this editor deleted several of the links on this template. See above. 216.60.70.61 23:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Evil Spartan (there is a number of articles related to state terrorism, see for some samples List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state) Tazmaniacs 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Presumptuous title. List is vacuous. WP:NOT It is all synthesis and original research. The list should he created by a reliable source since it is such a conentious issue. For example, the EU has list of terrorist organizations and that list should exist on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia should not be creating its own lists of state terrorist as this template is trying to do. The "Wikipedia List of State Terrorists" is inherently original research and synthesis of published material and is not allowed by policy. --Tbeatty 08:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Calling violence by the state terrorism is begging the question, as all actions by the state are politically motivated. Notion is thus superfluous. A state terrorism article on Wikipedia shall have to be more metaphysical than anyhting else, but this template here is really adding nothing. Intangible2.0 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I fail to see why this is not encyclopedic. Anyway, the reason for the template not currently containing links is that some users deleted them prior to the TFD. The template in its earlier, non-emptied form seemed to be acceptable. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why use a template with a few articles? The suggestion to link within the page is correct as the See also section would eventually be added by someone. The way these types of articles go lately, anything goes. The template adds nothing. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep nominator and POV friends deleted all of the links in this template, then put this template up for deletion because there were no links in the template. Because of this dishonest behavior, will ask for this article to be speedy kept. 216.60.70.61 23:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC) — 216.60.70.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So it's you who added Idi Amin to the template under the Easteregg title 'Uganda'? Even though the word 'terrorism' never occurs in Idi Amin's biography? How does that work? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy keep per existing arguments... Ranma9617 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not encyclopedic is not a rationale. The editors who want this deleted have complained that it is biased to have an article about State Terrorism and the US and not other countries. As a result other editors have suggested expanding the number of articles to other countries (there's currently another about Sri Lanka) and I see this template as a means to encourage new articles by forming an overarching category/template for the two that already exist.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Completely specious and spurious. --72.65.92.47 02:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV, too easy to abuse, difficult to verify its application, disruption magnet. - Crockspot 14:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is clear counter template action.(links have just been readded) There's no POV on this template, nor in the article's links, many of these are pretty well sourced. A discussion just above about wheter STATE TERRORISM exists or not is OFF TOPIC, this page is for discussing on the template itself.--Andersmusician VOTE 00:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure of the encyclopedic value of this. State terrorism is a pretty vague blanket term, and it's POV depending on which side of the argument you're on. Moreover, I think the inclusion of article regarding different countries it implies a link between the terrorism in different places that doesn't in fact exist. In short, it's creating a topic heading that doesn't really exist - a better idea would be a cat, or a subheading in a Terrorism template, because there can be a relationship positied on a more genral level that way. MSJapan 00:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we nominate Template:Christianity for deletion, no. All articles can be POV depending the side from its written, thats no deletion argum. Also this type of "terrorism" shouldn't be confused with the stereotipic def, needs its own separated template --Andersmusician VOTE 01:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Innately POV template. I would oppose it even as a category, as I would oppose templates/cats. of the form ((Alleged terorrists)), ((Alleged murderers)), ((Alleged rapists)) (even when there are no BLP concerns) etc. Abecedare 04:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MONGO. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 07:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. —MJCdetroit 14:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tom, just two valid articles. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the editors here also attempted to have another related article deleted recently, the page also suffers from blanking by some participants in this debate: Recent blanking by Mongo [9][10] TBeatty [11][12] are clearly violations of this very process. Further the articles that the template points to are all sourced and valid. The template does not duplicate another and this submitter has not even given a valid reason for deletion. --SixOfDiamonds 20:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read the justifications for deletion before you make a erroneous comments...[13]...as I stated in my deletion reason. Adjustments to templates and articles undergoing discussions for deletion are normal and there is no policy violation in doing so.--MONGO 20:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that it links to two articles, which is based on you removing the others and or blanking the entire page? ... yeah good job, you make a valid argument for deletion. Perhaps if you did not remove all the content in a revert war, there would be a continued process to include content. Especially when the talk page disagrees with you. --SixOfDiamonds 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The template contains vastly more content then when it was proposed for deletion, which is also just after much of it was removed. You can see it clearly lists more articles then cited in the TfD. It is also now protected to prevent further blanking. I would ask the closing admin to look over votes agreeing with Mongo, as they are no longer valid, seeing as the template is larger then cited. --SixOfDiamonds 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Murambatsvina, Rangoon bombing, and 8888 Uprising, do not mention terrorism;
Terrorism in India is about terrorism in India, not about state terrorism by India;
Including Reign of Terror as an example of state terrorism is a gross anachronism. I wonder that you didn't include Roman persecution of Christians;
Paramilitarism in Colombia mentions terrorism only once, and then it is not state terrorism;
The addition of The Killing Fields can only be justified because it is in the Category:State terrorism, so the new template is probably redundant anyway;
The inclusion of Dirty War is at least supported by text in the underlying article.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no logical reason to delete this template. It is useful and joins together existing articles on a common theme. This nom is POV motivated, as with the dozens of other, failed AfDs started recently. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 20:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of the articles recently added don't mention state terrorism, what theme would that be? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is linking common articles. For instance the Cuban Flight bombing does not mention it is considered state terrorism on the part of the US, however it has been cited as state terrorism. The articles on gas chambers do not have to mention the word executions for it to be on a template of methods of execution. The fact that you come here from the article attempt to place article standards on a template shows how misguided your points are. Here is an easy to explain comparison, Osama bin Laden's article does not cite him as a terrorist, would you then state any template relating to terrorism with his inclusion should also be deleted? --SixOfDiamonds 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are telling the reader in the template that these are articles about state terrorism. Where should be the citations to support that? They are not in the underlying articles, and the underlying articles do not in general even address state terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the citations are doing so, mr. harrison, grammar is not a criteria for inclusion nor deletion--Andersmusician VOTE 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What citations are doing so? There are none in the template (I don't see how there could be) and there are none in the articles supporting any connection to state terrorism - not surprising since the linked articles are not about state terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the protection is removed I can add sources for Luis Posada/CIA intereference in Cuba as well as Iraq, I have some nice sources including a nobel laureate in literature and obviously the government that was invaded and overthrown. As for Guatemala I have a source citing that as state terrorism as well. Once its unprotected you can see it grow. Unfortunatly due to some people blanking the template I cannot add related articles, and due to edit warring and blanking of sections on the US article I cannot add more sources there either. --74.73.16.230 00:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of state terrorism in Guatemala is unprotected and empty. Go for it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP At least until problems with deliberately disruptive behaviour intended to force topic deletion have been overcome. Wayne 21:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption is in the larding of the template with unrelated articles. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per The Evil Spartan Thanks Taprobanus 21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy Keep per The Evil Spartan. It is a useful navagation template. As stated you can delete article that are not wiki standards but do not delete the template. This is very useful template that will keep the see also from being cluttered with other related articles. Watchdogb 21:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a special note: Most of the argument against the template is actually a argument against articles "State terrorism". While it might be true that some of the article might not belong under state terrorism, it does not mean that the template must be deleted. Keep in mind that even if the template is deleted the articles remain. So please go ahead with AFD and not XFD. If this template is deleted then people will just add all these to the "see also" section. Which will then result in edit warring. Watchdogb 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Watchdogb delete articles not meeting standards but not all Harlowraman 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. No proper rationale shown for deletion, and no obvious reason why it is "not helpful or encyclopedic and serves no benefit". On the contrary, we should seek to improve and broaden our coverage of state terrorism. As far as I can see this template can or could aid that effort, by linking various articles. Of course the articles linked to will need to be carefully monitored. Attempts to blank the content of the template during the discussion have not been helpful to the discussion. --John 23:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious anti-american POV template--Sefringle^Talk 01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy DELETE This is just going to be a lighning rod for more edit wars. I am not even sure that all of the articles it points to are valid.WacoJacko 03:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently POV and OR. --rogerd 06:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So much of terrorism in the world is state sponsored. Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah and Party of God in Lebanon (at least until recently) come to mind as worthwhile avenues of explorations for new articles. France bombed the GreenPeace ship near Australia some years ago; the PLO back in the 70s was perpetrating acts of terrorism and being financed by several countries; Operation Condor; Plus the existing articles can and should be improved. Instead of trying to delete material in this template how about contributing along these or other lines? --NYCJosh 06:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whehter it will be a valid template I don't know, but under the current highly POV-driven contributions we should at least give it a chance to grow. Deleting everything to prevent it from becoming WP-worthy defeats the purpose of the deletion process.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 06:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Accusations of terrorism, state and otherwise, are thrown around like confetti these days, and there is no generally-trusted person or body for Wikipedia to treat as authoritative (especially not the UN, to anticipate a probable objection; no-one with any sense trusts the UN). So this list-within-a-template is indeed "inherently POV and OR", as previous !voters have said: it can only represent the OR and POV of the Wikipedians who edit(-war over) it. Keeping it would contradict core Wikipedia policies. It has to go. CWC 09:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CWC, according to your reasoning, we should also delete the WP article on "Terrorism". For that matter, should we remove ALL mentions of the word "terrorism" on WP, unless they are in direct quotes?--NYCJosh 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. I didn't write good enough—sorry. In an article we can (and should) make it clear who is making the accusation of terrorism, report what other authorities have said about the accusation, etc, etc. In a template like this, we rate accusations of terrorism as credible or not credible, by including or excluding articles. It's the same problem as controversial categories for living people (see WP:BLP#Categories).

I see that Tom Harrison has made the same argument.

This template still has to go. CWC 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rogerd. ElinorD (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBeatty. --Mantanmoreland 15:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete State terrorism itself begins (at the moment), "State terrorism is a controversial term, with no agreed on definition[.]" I don't see how we can provide a list like this as a template when the connection between the articles is, as we state, tenuous and debateable. At best I think we could put a list within the main article. Mangoe 16:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has improved quite a bit since the nom, and it clearly provides a useful function for researchers. Allegations of state terrorism are some of the most controversial, and end up being censored all the time. We shouldn't shy from controversy. BenB4 16:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems a valid theme. The comments against seem to be against the concept, not the template... :T L Miles 20:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the concept isn't there; it's that its application is controversial if not downright tendentious. Mangoe 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Evil Spartan. Lotlil 22:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. --Mvuijlst 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, Speedy Keep, as this nomination is done in BAD FAITH. I think some of the users that are vandalising the template should be put on some sort of probation from editing this page until they can calm down. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, POV-based bad faith nomination. 86.138.190.41 09:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC) (I am User:KamrynMatika - can't remember my password at this second)[reply]
Keep. PS. wikipedia still suffers from an overwhelming presence of US editors.--BMF81 13:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Travb. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently a POV template. Whispe ring 17:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MONGO--RCT 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that is without the fact that half MONGO's nomination is incorrect and the template has more then 2 articles? --74.73.16.230 16:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rogerd. MortonDevonshire Yo · 08:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the articles exist, this is a way of navigating them. No different from other similar templates. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe. --MichaelLinnear 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, disruptive nomination behaviour. Perfectly useful template. Seeing as the attempt to have the whole article deleted failed, targeting the template used in it is no better. --Servant Saber 15:53, 10 July 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 speedy delete per CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). Although the page is in the template namespace, it is actually a recreation of a deleted article. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template. It is basically an nn bio stub masquarading as a template. The article it was created for was speedily deleted. — Flyguy649^talk _contribs 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like it should be a very speedy delete. It's not a template, but a vanity infobox about an individual NN college student named Brian Spittler. --orlady 17:08, 3 July 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in one article. The template should just be substed and then deleted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'll take care of the "subst"ing on this and the next three. All the admin needs to do is delete. Shalom ^Hello 18:51, 3 July 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in one article. The template should just be substed and then deleted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:33, 3 July 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in one article. The template should just be substed and then deleted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:33, 3 July 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in one article. The template should just be substed and then deleted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:33, 3 July 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template was replaced by ((NotreDameFootballSeasons)) and is unneeded now. No longer links anywhere. — Phydend 01:23, 3 July 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template was replaced by ((Infobox Settlement)) so that all Settlements in Canada use the same template. MJCdetroit 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template 2 years ago because the standard city infobox was confusing and horrible-looking. This new settlement infobox is better, except for the population and area sections and the drab lack of colour. But everything changes here, so it is ok. But, I'd rather not delete this template because that will remove the infobox from the article histories. --maclean 03:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it was much better than ((Canadian Town)) indeed. Still, I don't think it should be kept for historical reasons, I'd say delete. --Qyd 04:16, 3 July 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 'speedy delete G2. --ais523 13:16, 6 July 2007 (U T C)

I'm not sure what the purpose of this template is, but it is unused and seems to have been created as a test. If someone more knowledgeable in templates than I could confirm that it is indeed a test, it would become subject to deletion per CSD G2. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Close enough to test for me. There's no documentation, no indication of usage (no links), and was only edited twice (first time was creation) on the same day over two years ago. It might be a language template, but we have one of those for Chinese already. Creator took a two-year Wikibreak, so it's unlikely that the purpose behind this template will ever be ascertained. MSJapan 00:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 08:04, 5 July 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.

July 3

Template:Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates

Template:Institutes Of Management Technology

Template:Bahnstreckenabschnitt Stuttgart Hbf–Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt

Template:Stable

Template:State terrorism

Template:Infobox Student

Template:Ship box HMCS Victoria (SSK 876)

Template:Ship box HMCS Windsor (SSK 877)

Template:Ship box HMCS Corner Brook (SSK 878)

Template:Ship box HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879)

Template:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football teams

Template:Infobox Municipality of British Columbia

Template:Zh-templates-demo