Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 18



Template:User marriage man-woman

 * 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 AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This was speedied under T1, but there were objections that it does not meet the criterion of being "inflammatory and divisive". A discussion at WP:DRV resulted in neither a majority endorsing the deletion nor a supermajority to overturn it. I have therefore restored it so it can be discussed here at TfD. No vote from me. Angr/ talk 15:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not in violation of T1 and it's not, I repeat, not divisive. It says it belives in a marriage between a man and women. Regardless if you belive in that statement or not, its a belief. Does the people who want this deleted as divisive know what divisive means? Divisive means troublesome and conflict-ridden, which this userbox is not. Speedy Keep as this TFD is more troublesome than what it's on. M o e   ε  15:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete divisive. Same goes for any gay rights template. -Quasipalm 17:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per moe. this "divissive" aspect for delition criteria is rediculious. We don't go deleating articles on "devisive" subjects do we? Mike McGregor (Can) 18:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * kEEP - We kept the gay rights template. If we delete this and not the other then we are allowing one POV and not another. Terrible precedent.--God Ω War 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:God_of_War's comments.--Looper5920 02:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; while I would have voted delete if the gay rights template was not already kept, double standards are not acceptable  Wh e  re  (talk) (Clarify T1) 04:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This lets others know what that user holds near & dear to their heart, which can be useful in understanding another person. —optikos 23:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per anyone above, e.g. Where. Stifle 01:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as above MiraLuka 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Holy war avoidance keep per above --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 19:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Chairman S.  Talk  22:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Considering most of the world believes this, as do I, keep. TruthCrusader 10:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if you support T1 there is no reason to delete this one. Larix 22:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if and only if the other template expressing a similar opinion, which was out-of-process speedy-deleted (before the T1 criterion even existed, no less!) despite being no more or less offensive, incivil, divisive, or than this one (one could only say that it's less sneaky and backhanded, since it expresses the user's belief in a straightforward manner rather than trying to disguise it as "protecting the sanctity of marriage", so in that sense it's more valuable and civil), is also undeleted. If it is not, then delete both this template and its "counterpart" (though in a sense it's a false dichotomy to argue that the opposite of "marriage is between a man and woman" is "this user supports gay rights"; in reality, the opposite of "supports gay rights" is "opposes gay rights" or "doesn't acknowledge gay rights", a template that never has existed and never will, despite all the above chatter about 'treating both sides equally'), lest hypocrisy flourish. -Silence 23:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- getcrunk   juice  contribs 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to be designed and used more as an expression of bigotry than as an expression of a valid viewpoint. - Chadbryant 20:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - How declaring homosexuals to be second class citizens, unworthy of the same rights as the rest of us, can be described as 'non divisive' is a great mystery to me. This is gay bashing, pure and simple. --CBDunkerson 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I missed the part where it said anything about gay rights on this template. It says, "believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman." I simply states an opinion, nothing more or less. It wouldn't look right if we kept the gay rights/gay marriage templates and did away with the others would it? M o e   ε  00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be disingenuous. Yes, the template 'simply states an opinion'... like every template which has been deleted for divisiveness... an opinion which is offensive to some group of people. This one states the 'opinion' that only heterosexual couples should be allowed to enter into legally recognized marriages with all the rights and responsibilities attendant thereon... implicitly denying those rights to homosexuals. I don't think we should be censoring divisive userboxes, but since we do as a matter of policy this one ought to go to. Claiming that it isn't offensive is just dishonest... if you disagree, I invite you to express this 'opinion' to a committed homosexual couple and see how offended they aren't. --CBDunkerson 17:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... I don't see how someone stating their opinion on whether or not a marriage between two people of the same sex is still "marriage" is the same thing as, say, someone throwing a brick through your window or punching you in the face (which would be "gay-bashing"). I am a lesbian, I created this template, and I do not find it offensive at all.  If I felt that people were "bashing" me every time they expressed an opinion on LGBT issues that I disagreed with, I would have a hard time getting through life. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 05:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, of course. Not because I support the sentiment of the userbox, but anyone has the right to express that sentiment. --Sammysam 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per GoW  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 09:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. --Hyphen5 10:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would not use this one, but I don't agree that there is a prima facie case for deleting it. Merecat 20:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I strongly disagree with the sentiments expressed in this template but respect the right of others to express an opinion. --carlb 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep goes well with template:User marriage man-man and Template:User marriage woman-woman--Culpafacia 04:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I especially like the part where Image:Female.svg is 20 pixels, and Image:Male.svg is 24 pixels, nice touch--Culpafacia 04:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Course I probably can't vote since this is my 3rd edit, right after creating both templates--Culpafacia 04:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per Optikos & God of War, Avalon 05:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep so long as other sexual-orientation-activism-related templates exist. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 05:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 deleted by request of creator (CSD G7). &mdash;Andux␅ 20:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Kamboja Ruler
I just created this before realizing that there already exists a "succession template" that is usable and quite flexible. As long as the succession template exists, I see no reason to create separate templates for every office. LordAmeth 14:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per CSD G7. &mdash;Andux␅ 17:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sockpban
I think this can be deleted, since it's redundant to SockpuppetProven. Only 15/20 pages were including it: I replaced it with SockpuppetProven or subst:ed it as applicable. The related Category:Wikipedia:Blocked sockpuppets (now empty) is also redundant to Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets. Mushroom (Talk) 05:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per nom --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 19:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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. &mdash;Andux␅ 06:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Cowbell-2
There's a valid debate over what makes a valid userbox, but silly memes like this surely don't belong in userboxes. I'm all for silliness, in appropriate contexts, but this is not the place for such things. Wikipedia is an online community as a means toward the end of being an online encyclopedia (WP:NOT), and using internet memes (outside of encyclopedic articles about them) does not respect that distinction. Icarus 02:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a userbox for users to put on userpages. Nothing more.—thegreentrilby 03:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination is a joke. The userbox police are going to far.--Looper5920 08:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yeah, especially when they deleted User allow fairuse, but that's another story.—thegreentrilby 16:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep It's a userbox for heaven sakes, who cares? If you don't like looking at the userbox, don't look at it. M o e   ε  15:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. How can this silly userbox harm anyone? Misza 13 T C 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep and sigh per above. Mike McGregor (Can) 18:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If users want to show it, I don't see what the harm is; it's not divisive or offensive. — TKD::Talk 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per looper --Pilotguy (  talk ¦  ✉  ) '' 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the nominator, I wish to clarify my reasons for nominating this userbox. Quoted from WP:UBX: "The primary purpose of user boxes and user categories should be to alert other Wikipedians to ways you might aid them in editing. For instance, if you speak a second language or have professional expertise in a technical field, other users will know they can contact you for assistance."  There are many things that it might be helpful to display a userbox for, even things that might not seem useful on the surface.  For instance, if I displayed a userbox identifying me as a scuba diver, my intent might be simply to show off my hobby but it would also alert people to my knowledge of the equipment, physics, etc. that I could use to help write an article.  A userbox identifying me as a fan of a certain video game system could also be useful if help was needed in an article about that system, the history of gaming in general, etc.  Although they are controversial, even political or religious userboxes can be useful in identifying someone who may be more knowledgeable on a certain subject than the average person (or, alternatively, who may be more likely to have a POV problem).  This userbox, however, is nothing more than a meme.  Memes can be great fun, but they're just that—fun.  The primary purpose of wikipedia userboxes is to be useful in some way, so memes should be saved for elsewhere. --Icarus 21:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So what your saying is theres no fun allowed in userboxes. Well, there goes Userboxes/Funny. The quote from WP:UBX you stated: "The primary purpose of user boxes and user categories should be to alert other Wikipedians to ways you might aid them in editing." It states the primary purpose of userboxes..., not the only purpose for userboxes... I don't think everything that contains some humor should be eliminated. M o e   ε  22:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that at all. I said that they have to be useful.  I can see how my wording was somewhat ambiguous; thank you for pointing that out.  It's fine for userboxes to be fun as long as they are fun in addition to, and not instead of, being useful. --Icarus 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should point out Userboxes/Funny again. I think even you would agree that a lot of the stuff listed here is nonsense/non-useful. But, it's not the point of it being useful. If Jimbo Wales, the Arbcom, or majority of admins didn't want userboxes at all, they would have been speedy deleted a long time ago. And since the mass speedy deletion of userboxes was shot down before, I don't think thats going to happen again. Maybe the point I'm trying to bring foward is it doesn't hurt to have it. If it meets T1 then speedy delete it, if it's controversial put it on WP:TFD but stuff like this is better left alone.  M o e   ε  01:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of not wanting userboxes at all, it's a matter of what the standards are for legitimate useboxes. The debates I've seen about userboxes have been about ones that could be seen as divisive, like religious and political ones, and not about about this issue.  If there has been a discussion that I missed, I hope someone will provide a link to it.  Seeing the responses so far, I certainly don't expect this nomination to succeed.  But that's why I tested the waters with one instead of mass nominating a whole bunch of non-useful ones at the same time.  I personally think that some users need to remember that this is an encyclopedia first and foremost, not Friendster or Myspace, and I think that non-useful userboxes blur that, but it doesn't seem like there will be a consensus any time soon that will lead to that being enforced.  --Icarus 03:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Lighten up, Francis--Looper5920 05:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as above MiraLuka 03:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, please. I find this userbox useful and informative. It leads to one of the more interesting and entertaining articles on Wikipedia. Indeed, when I found the cowbell userbox, I felt encouraged to look up the article. It served a purpose! It is a cultural touchstone. It identifies me as someone who appreciates the cowbell and its use in music, as well as someone who is a fan of the Saturday Night Live skit.Wisekwai 17:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per all good reasons above. Funnybunny 02:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as above. --Hyphen5 10:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: it's no more silly than countless others. Chill. Go with the userbox flow. GenericGabriel 21:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Userboxes are for the sole purpose of makeing your userpage not suck. If you read WP:UBX, you will find it supports my statement. The Republican 02:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep again. Where do we go from here? Is it okay to remove the delete tag? Wisekwai 15:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 no consensus. &mdash;Andux␅ 07:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User abolish Republika Srpska

 * Delete Crossing out a flag shows a lack of respect for the people who feel represented by it. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep-As shown in the discussion on this image for deletion from March 5:, the images with crossed-out flags were kept by overwhelming support. This user keeps nominating crossed-out flags to prove a point--Metros232 01:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion was about images, the template with a crossed out EU flag was deleted. The above user seems to try to abuse the "prove a point" allegation to silence others. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Also there is a temlate that oppose the seperation of Montenegro (template:User not independent Montenegro). Again, if those are kept, then Template:User abolish Republika Srpska has a 100% right to be on Wikipedia. --User:Kseferovic 04:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Per Metros232. M o e   ε  15:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per Metros232.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom is trying to make a WP:POINT MiraLuka 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Attack template. (Nothing to do with the crossed-out flag.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above ---larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 19:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Attack template. Nexm0d | (talk)
 * Speedy keep per above. Live Forever 03:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a valid opinion. --[[Image:Aum.png|20 px]]Shell &lt;e&gt; 00:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. --demicx 19:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Despite my anti-censorship views, it is for the sole purpose of attacking a group, and we should'nt have that on Wikipedia. The Republican 02:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Republika Srpska was fromed through ethnic cleansing. The crossing out of the flag exemplifies what should occur. Nothing is wrong with it. The formation of a template that uses the old Bosnian flag of 1991-1998 and states that this user is for the reinstatement of Republika Bosna i Hercegovina (Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina) should be created. Again I am for the keeping of this template, since there is a tmeplate that states This user supports the independence of Republika Srpska. What's wrong with this template??? If Template:User independent Republika Srpska is kept then Template:User abolish Republika Srpska should also be kept
 * Delete. Not a suitable subject for a template. David | Talk 14:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Metros232 and Kseferovic. Same thing with the whole pro independence of XY userboxes. nepTune 20:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the issue is very much alive and present as well as established concept and the subject of academic studies. It is also a balance for its opposite This user supports the independence of Republika Srpska. Or maybe we should delete both. --Dado 20:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all divisive, political Userboxes. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a battleground. Nhprman UserLists  20:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have suggested to delete all political user boxes which I agree should be done but in this particular case we are discusing the deletion of this particular user box. It would be unfair and clearly biased and POV to delete one user box while leaving the descending view.--Dado 01:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with you: delete both the "independence" and "abolish" Userboxes in this case - and in ALL cases. But are you arguing that because ALL boxes aren't deleted at once, we cannot delete this ONE (which is clearly divisive?) That, of course, means none *will* ever be deleted, using this logic. Currently, it can also mean whoever can find the most support "wins" (box saved) and whoever can't, "loses" (box deleted.) That's why I think this Userbox War is ludicrous, because democratically, the majority declares that the minority CANNOT express themselves. There are far better ways to express oneself than fighting over these little boxes. Nhprman UserLists  03:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep no reason given for deletion. --70.218.15.218 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 no consensus. &mdash;Andux␅ 06:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User independent Iraq
This is divisive, and bordering on (if not meeting) T1.  Wh e  re  (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nom withdrawn.  Wh e  re  (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You may have withdrawn it, but as soon as certian admins see this page, they'll delete it anyway--205.188.117.11 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have un-crossed Where's vote since the template has been basically reverted. Misza 13 T C 09:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep independence user boxes do not seem to be seen as divisive in general here. ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - could easily be considered an attack on the US. I think it warrants a speedy -- Tawker 00:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * An attack on the aggressor? How evil... ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why bother if something isn't GOP freindly, just take it to the right kind of mod and they can make is disapear, like category:Wikipedians who dislike George Bush, or, you know, userboxes that support non-christian relgions, clearly divisive--205.188.117.11 00:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but the AK47 picture implies that the person with the userbox wants to use violence to achieve the aims, circumventing the Shia-dominated government. So we might as well have a userbox saying "this user wants to violently overthrow governments in which the majority party does not agree with me, in the process killing loads and loads of innocent civilians." Also, calling the US "imperialist" is a little divisive. I would no problem with the userbox if it only attacked US foreign policy as imperialist (although I don't agree with that), but calling the US, and by extension, all of its citizens imperialist is quite divisive and offensive.  Wh e  re  (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I redid the userbox to fix those objections, and I no longer have any complains.  Wh e  re  (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Alterations not convincing, but the weapon was removed and replaced with a picture showing civil disobedience. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete even the hamster provided by an anon AOL doesn't convince me it's not intrinsically divisive. --Alf melmac 01:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a notable opinion, knowledge of which on the part of other editors would lead to a more neutral encyclopedia. --James S. 02:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've seen less divisive/polemical templates speedied. Misza 13 T C 09:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. M o e   ε  15:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep M o e   ε  19:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per james s. Mike McGregor (Can) 18:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --HJV 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm neutral here. I suggest we appease both sides by changing its content. We could remove inflammatory stuff, and use better words, like "This user opposes the US Military presence in Iraq." Jareand 20:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This doesn't just support independence; that's not the issue. It explicitly supports terrorists who are slaughtering Iraqis and hurting Iraq -- that's an evil thing regardless of where you stand on the invasion. --Hyphen5 08:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you even had a look at the template? It explicitly does not support terrorism. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, the edits since its inception have made it pretty tame and harmless. --Sammysam 18:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, As the userbox is now, it supports a non violent withdrawal. --Jamie Battenbo 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a suitable subject for a template. David | Talk 14:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep no reason given for deletion. --70.218.15.218 05:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 speedy keep. Invalid nomination. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:TFD
Strongly devisive, must be deleted--205.188.117.11 00:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.

<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 19:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Delete2
Unnecessary to have a form of voting for speedy deletes. The number of requests is not important. The only issue is does the proposed article meet the policy to be speedey deleted. Vegaswikian 00:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the need for some kind of a quasi-vote to occur on speedies. Either something is a speedy or it isn't, I don't think any admins are sitting around waiting for this template to appear before they hit delete. So uh, delete. --W.marsh 01:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Icarus 02:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per prod-2. -- King of Hearts talk 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I wonder if prod-2 should be included here for deletion. It does not appear to serve any real purpose.  Vegaswikian 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, speedy is not prod. Mushroom (Talk) 02:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It makes sense on PROD, but PROD is a different beast than speedy deletion, and on speedy deletion this isn't the way to go.  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  02:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. enochlau (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Chairman S.  <sup style="color:#CD5700;">Talk  05:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. - The DJ 22:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Gflor e sTalk 17:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.