Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 5



Template:Fictional Series

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-controversial housekeeping (WP:CSD). PeterSymonds (talk)  22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If all fictional series were added to this template, it would be larger than some articles. If it were to be transcluded anywhere, it could be easily replaced with Template:Media series — - LA (T) 20:11, 5 August 2008 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:The Prom Night Tetralogy

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete

Template:Prom Night exists, so this one is a duplicate. — - LA (T) 06:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused duplicate. Paragon12321 (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary duplicate. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2008 (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 section.

Template:Infobox Freedom fighter

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. . Title is certainly inferior to, and the whole template could probably be replaced by Happy‑melon 13:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This template seems to be a POV-pushing duplicate of various biography infobox. Calling it Template:Infobox terrorist would certainly cause some problems, so the extreme opposite is unacceptable as well. —  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   05:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:POV "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." -- M2Ys4U ( talk ) 06:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indeed. It's use in Timothy McVeigh (the only article where it is used) certainly suggests an agenda of sorts. PC78 (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to Template:Infobox Terrorist Template:Infobox Person Template:Infobox Terrorist. That sounds like an acceptable compromise. A terrorist is, after all, merely someone who carries out the activities mentioned in § 2331. "Criminal" implies something worse; bear in mind that Murray Rothbard and others describe the government itself as a "vast engine of institutionalized crime and aggression" and a "criminal organization." To try to influence the policy of such an organization by intimidation or coercion or affect its conduct through mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping is not necessarily a bad thing, since one is dealing with criminals and aggressors anyway; the government would certainly say it is okay to intimidate those involved in what it views as organized crime through the threat of kidnapping (arrest). So, it seems pretty objective to simply describe McVeigh as a "terrorist" rather than "criminal," because no moral judgment is being made. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. By the way, I notice that templates are typically deleted after about three "votes" are cast. Is that supposed to be some kind of representative sample of Wikipedia ediors? I guess here, even more than at AfD, you'd better make sure you get your side of the story in super-early, before otherwise your vote will likely be the last one cast; which means that the decision will have been made without taking into account your input. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: While I have seen many many XfD discussions that were totally substandard that resulted in a totally bunk keep or delete, it's mostly about the closing admin and the users who participate. AfD seems to attract the most editors to participate, compared to other XfD discussion avenues (including this particular one, TfD), which is unfortunate, however, is not a reflection of the policy of deletion. I won't go so far as to say that the process if flawed, but it certainly doesn't live up to its potential. I dislike seeing stalled discussion, and I dislike seeing votes without any contributing evidence or discussion (the "vote" as opposed to consensus), but not being an administrator myself, I don't have any control over that and the process itself. I simply try to participate in XfD discussions that interest me, and make no apologies for not participating in those which don't.
 * In any case, I'm glad you decided to take part and I would find your compromise acceptable. It's not what I would have come up with myself (Ideally, I'd say just use the standard Template:Infobox Person to avoid POV entirely), but acceptable nonetheless.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your idea sounds even better. Of course, the downside is that it doesn't have stuff like charges, conviction, etc. On the other hand, the whole thing may be somewhat unimportant, upon further reflection, given that the reader doesn't see any of these nuts-and-bolts details anyway. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ideally, that information would be in the body of the article itself. The infobox is meant to provide the reader with a quick and uniform summary of pertinent facts to the article, not every single detail of the subject's life. I could see that case when criminal charges or convictions are the basis of that person's notability, but I'm really not sure how many articles fit that case. I'd like to see statistics on that, but I can't be arsed.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   18:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename current name violates WP:NPOV. I wouldn't support a move to Infobox Terrorist either (which incidentally already exists) - equally POV and neither is it semantically equivalent. Possibly use a more neutral word like "guerilla", "insurgent", "paramilitary", or "partisan" instead, per WP:TERRORIST if Infobox Person is insufficient. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whereas “terrorist” is a word with a straight-forward definition that is widely ignored (so that its problems are extrinsic), the meaning of “freedom fighter” hangs upon the meaning of “freedom”, which is far more problematic. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:01, 13 August 2008 (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 section.

Template:Top 5 Latin pop

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Happy‑melon 13:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Several reasons. First of all, it's ill defined. What is considered "pop"? And also, it's probably not a good idea to have a template with fair use pictures. The Iglesias and Shakira pictures look professionally done and therefore, probably fair use. Plus it simply isn't needed. — WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the well-explained reasons given by the nominator. Far too many issues with this template to be worth keeping. Terraxos (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Overly narrow template, PoV. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete violates WP:NPOV (what constitutes the "top 5"?) and WP:NOTDIR --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:NOTDIR pertains to categories, not templates. --Lambiam 06:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed. Vote remains the same. --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2008 (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 section.

Template:Dead Like Me

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Happy‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This template was recently trimmed because of merged articles, but as it now only contains four links (main article, Episodes, Characters, and Film), I don't think it's really needed. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - four articles seems sufficient for a navigational template, given that they are all closely related to the same topic. Terraxos (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The four articles appear to be sufficiently interlinked for this template to be unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Four links is sufficient and having links together in a consistent place complements the interlinking from the text. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2008 (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 section.

Template:Complete-list
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. . Use HTML comments instead. Any visible message is in violation of WP:NDA <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Violates WP:NDA. When exactly is a list "complete", and how do we know? The command "Do not add or remove any items from this list" is wholly inappropriate; entries may need to be added or removed from a "complete" list for any number of reasons. Consider its use in Hollywood Records; where is the evidence that this is a complete list of artists formerly signed to the label? Even if it is complete at this point in time, a list such as this cannot remain fixed, and it will be necessary to add to it in the future when the next artist leaves the label. In any case, this template has no widespread use, and is only transcluded in five articles. The associated category,, should go as well. — PC78 (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose (at least for now). If you come up with a better way to prevent constant editing of lists, then that would be fine with me. Here's the backstory: List of towns in Massachusetts (a predecessor to List of municipalities in Massachusetts) had 301 towns listed.  That's how many towns there have been in Massachusetts for about 150 years.  That list could change one day - it's not inconceivable.  However, that list is fairly static and not at all in flux.  Every once in a while, however, some well-intentioned and usually anonymous IP user mistakenly added a city to the list.  The list would then have to be reverted with a note saying that "Such-and-Such is not a town, it's a city."  This template, Complete-list, was created to make it clearer, both to future editors and to curious readers, that this list was, in fact, complete.  Unlike a list which employed listdev.—Markles 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, an "every once in a while" (your words) problem in a single article does not require a template such as this, not to mention that this template is not even used in the article you mention. We don't tag articles as being "complete", and lists should be no different; they should be edited, and inappropriate edits should be dealt with on a case by case basis. I have only your word that there are 301 towns in Massachusetts, and that this has been the case for 150 years (not that I care, mind you, but I'm making a point); if the article cited this as a fact, then perhaps that would be a step in the right direction? Saying "This is a complete list..." in the lead should be sufficient. But you can't instruct other editors not to make changes to an article. PC78 (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The template's admonition is only against editing the list, not the article. List articles should be edited just as everything should be edited, it's just that the template tells editors that the list itself is complete and they should "…not add or remove any items from this list." It is not used in the successor article because there was no need: a municipality in Massachusetts is either a city or a town and so it will be on the list and that wasn't going to get (assume good faith) vandalized.  Imagine it being placed on List of States in the United States.  There are 50 as there have been since the late 1950s.  Nobody's gonna (assuming good faith) edit the list to add or subtract states, so it's not necessary on that list.  Sure, new ones may join the US someday, but that's pretty static.—Markles 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't reasonably instruct editors not to remove or add to a list, though; the template implies an authority which does not exist. I think you see this template as a soloution to problem which, by and large, does not exist (evidenced by its lack of use, I would think). PC78 (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then how is it different from Expand list?—Markles 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would view Expand list as equivalent to Stub. PC78 (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The template has uses far beyond its current usage; I have begun adding it to addtional articles such as List of passengers on board RMS Titanic: do you really think that list could change in the future? It is a good notification for editors (and readers) that they do not need to go to sources to determine if additional members need to be added, and a much better alternative to making the article title say "Complete list of . . ." (which we have so far succeeded in guarding against). I also think it is a real stretch to call this a disclaimer (and that guideline has numerous template exceptions anyway).  UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also made the template a little more polite. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you not to go around adding this template to articles while this TfD is in progress? It shouldn't be going at the top of articles, anyway. Do you really think such a template is required in List of passengers on board RMS Titanic? And if you have "so far succeeded in guarding against" saying "Complete list of . . ." in articles, then how is using this template consistant with that viewpoint? With regards to WP:NDA, Stub and Expand list are "by design temporary"; this template is not, it is a permanent notice. PC78 (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for not adding the template to articles (where appropriate) during a TfD? And why should it not be at the top (Expand list) is almost always at the top)?  And while I don't think any template is "required" in any article, I do think the Titanic list is better with the template. If you read what I wrote, it is that we have guarded against the use of "Complete list of . . ." in article titles; per WP:LIST, the lead section should make clear the list's contents, and complete vs. incomplete seems a pretty important description of a list's contents.
 * I also disagree that Expand list is one of the templates that is "by design temporary"; do you really think that List of Scots will ever list every Scot, and therefore permit the removal of the Expand list template? UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "basis" is that use of this template is disputed; surely you can wait a few days for this TfD to run its course? By all means say in the lead that a list is complete, but a template is not part of the lead. PC78 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * List of Scots should be tagged with Dynamic list instead. PC78 (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  Cleanup/Redesign or Delete (changed to delete, see below). There are a few problems I can see with this template. From least-to-most serious:
 * 1) It's kind of ugly and doesn't fit with any of our template standardization styles (easily fixed).
 * 2) It's hard to tell in some instances (eg UKTV Gold) whether it applies to the list above or below the template.
 * 3) It's more of an anti-annoyance/idiot template, much like NoMoreLinks. I think the best option, would be to redesign the template to be like NoMoreLinks (ie visible in edit-mode only).
 * Otherwise (as it is written now) it would have to be added to the bibliography of every dead author (etc, etc, every historical list), which would amount to thousands of basically pointless template additions. -- Quiddity 19:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I would support a better version of the template which still accomplishes the task for which I originally designed it. I support Quiddity's suggestions (immediately above) to Cleanup/Redesign.—Markles 19:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I too would support a cleanup/redesign along these suggestions. PC78 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cleanup/Redesign or Delete in addition to Quiddity's concerns, here is another, the template prints! This template should not be printed with the article. A little commented out line at the top of the list would do just fine in most instances.  The Expand list is not as intrusive as this is. The section header could even be renamed   - LA (T) 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a pass at cleanup; it is now consistent with Expand list and notice template style guidelines. I believe this is better than having it as commented only (where the Wikilinks do not work), and where it is only visivle in edit mode. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's only a style change, though. It's the instruction not to add or remove from the list that is my biggest gripe. How about a simple "This list is complte."? Personally, though, I would prefer a hidden message as suggested above. PC78 (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your suggestion is a good compromise, and I made the change. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. :) PC78 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Further cleanup needed. At a minimum, the template instructions need clarifying (consistency is...):
 * should it be used in problem situations only, or in every single complete list?
 * should the template go before or after finished lists?
 * It is not "automatically substituted" as it currently states.
 * I'd still suggest that – if it is only intended for problem situations, then it should only be visible in edit-mode. Otherwise, every single list on Wikipedia will need to be tagged with either complete-list or incomplete-list – which would be daft. The absence of incomplete-list should be sufficient to imply completeness. -- Quiddity 17:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up To your first point, I think dictating whether it is used just in problem situations or in every complete list is a perfect example of instruction creep.  How about letting editors decide when to use it, like is done with incomplete-list (which is NOT on every incomplete list, nor should it be) and many, many other templates?  To your second and third points, I cleaned up the documentation.  I disagree with your assertion that the absence of incomplete-list implies completeness, and think the exact opposite is true: the absence of complete-list implies incompleteness. Can we close this discussion since we seem to have consensus not to delete, and take discussion of further improvements (which it would be great to get some help with) to the talk page for the template? UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Templates that don't provide encyclopedic information (such as infoboxes and nav templates) should be temporary. This on the other hand is basically designed to be permanent. It provides minimal information to readers and will be difficult to verify in many cases (such as those outlined by the nominator). And, it provides no useful information to editors, unlike incomplete-list. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Z-man. and per lack of need - 2 uses currently. I strongly suggest a NoMoreLinks format if this ever gets recreated/needed. -- Quiddity 19:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or rewrite per NoMoreLinks Wholly inappropriate as originally nominated; trivial and better as simple inline text in its current watered-down form. Assertions of completeness should be dated as things can always change, including the interpretation of historical events. A comment in the wikitext per NoMoreLinks is sufficient if the objective is to reduce uninformed editing. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2008 (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 section.

Template:Bible-in-universe
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Companion nomination to WP:TFD and WP:TFD, only more so. Template was created after these tfd nominations and based on Template:in-universe used for fiction. As explained in detail in WP:WAF, use of the term "in universe" is a reference to a fictional universe as distinguished from the real world. (See e.g. Template:In-universe/Star Wars (Star Wars), Template:ME-in-universe (Middle-earth)). Use of this terminology effectly characterizes the Bible as fiction and is equivalent to claiming it has zero historical value. Such characterizations contradict longstanding consensus on the appropriate use of WP:NPOV in reference to the Bible, and are inconsistent with actual legitimate real-world scholarly and religious practices in making use of the Bible. A template that characterizes the Bible as a fictional universe with no real-world existence or historical value at all is as much an abuse of Wikipedia's editorial credibility, trust and good offices as a template that characterizes the Bible as infallible. — Shirahadasha (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Comment I accept that the author of this template created it in good faith and unconnected to the existing TFD. Therefore, any language suggesting that creation of this template was improper was out of place and I apologize. I also accept that the creator, in good faith, simply selected what might have seemed to be the closest available template model in an effort to be helpful, without necessarily intending some of the connotations associated with it in what might seem to be unrelated Wikipedia guidelines. Nonetheless, for the reasons previously stated, I believe that the "in-universe" template model and name, because the fiction guidelines use it to characterize fiction as distinct from the "real world", is not suitable for a maintenance template for sources like religious scriptures. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator's reasons above, also comments at the other two tfds. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete uggh! another POV pushing template.  --rogerd (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per the previous discussions on similar templates. This is hopelessly POV, openly characterising The Bible as a work of fiction, which we shouldn't do; in addition, it's too limited for a template anyway. If there are articles on Biblical subjects that lack outside context, there are plenty of existing templates (e.g. balance) that can be used to draw attention to that without being as abrasive as this one. Terraxos (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete other then the two other TFD, it is extremly POV to refer to the Bible as fiction and a violation of WP:NPOV policy, delete, it is as said above, another POV pushing template. Epson291 (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional character-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. IZAK (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per... yeah....... You know, this might even meet speedy criteria. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Too specific.  MBisanz  talk 12:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We do need some way of saying that biblical-related articles quote the bible as fact, rather than as a text. We must always write "According to the bible..." or similar (or at least imply it with context). Taking the bible at its word is untenable for a neutral encyclopedia. &mdash; Werdna • talk 12:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely rewritten What do others think? &mdash; Werdna • talk 12:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There is already a Template:BibleAsFact, which is undergoing a TFD as a companion to this one. I think the key thing to note here is that the No original research policy mentions "religious scriptures" as a primary source, and I think any template should stick very close to this and not go beyond it. In the BibleAsFact TFD, I've proposed a   template as a compromise which simply tracks our standard policy about using primary sources. Although I'm not sure a special template is needed, I believe any template should have both a name and language that sticks very closely to the relevant policy and avoids the possibility of giving offense to or getting entangled in any controversy over religion. I think names like "Bible-in-universe" and "BibleAsFact" are simply too controversial and imply too much of an editorial opinion to be appropriate template names. Templates are supposed to be neutral and helpful, and names matter. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Went ahead and created Template:Bible-Primary. Its intent is just to track standard policy on the use of primary sources in articles without trying to say anything more. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments in discussions for BibleAsFact and in-religion-universe. Cannot be fixed by rewrite as title inherently violates WP:NPOV in a potentially offensive manner, clearly implying the Bible is pure fiction; consensus from the other debates appeared to agree that viewing the Bible as pure fiction is either an insignificant minority point of view, or possibly original research. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2008 (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 section.

Template:EP6 MEP image
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

All images was deleted 18 November 2007. Useless. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 14:53, 5 August 2008 (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 section.