Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 14

< November 13	November 15 >

November 14

Template:Spa

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The result of the debate was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no other delete votes. I am not an admin. tjstrf talk 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template encourages the "biting" of newcomers. It also doesn't specify how many edits are needed to be considered "few". TBCΦtalk? 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - If the very first thing that an anon user does is to weigh in on an XfD debate, then yeah -- his vote is suspect. Sorry, them's the facts, and spa is an extremely relevant piece of information. What's the cutoff number? I dunno, common sense applies here; you know it when you see it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While I agree with WP:BITE, users whose first and only contrib is a vote in an XfD discussion or edit-warring over the same article up for AfD are POV pushing and aren't likely to become productive Wikipedians anyways. Leuko 00:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, extremely useful tag in xFD and DRV discussions. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful template that has the potential for misuse just like any other. And didn't we just decide to keep this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Single purpose account? -- Satori Son 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That discussion seemed to be focused more on Wikipedia:Single purpose account than on the template.--TBCΦtalk? 06:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. All of the votes seem to be relating to the use of the template, particularly XfD debates. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I disagree.--TBCΦtalk? 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were referring to this debate. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Strong Keep - is it possible to speedy keep templates? It's just the whole "the template below has been proposed for deletion" is messing up the visuals of many xFD/DRVs currently, given how this particular template is generally used. Also, I agree with everything said above. --Dreaded Walrus 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - admins can exercise common sense on this. Where there is misuse this template is valid and should be used. Where it's not, it can be left out. I agree with Jim Douglas though - weighing into an AfD on your first edit is a bit sus. JROBBO 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ Keep (as per my comments below) - for said reasons, and because we just had this discussion less than a week ago, and we should try to keep XfD nominations further apart. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See my comment to Satori Son above.--TBCΦtalk? 06:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I see. There is a difference. So I've changed my vote from strong keep to keep. Probably not what you were looking for, but I still think it should stay. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important in record-keeping for detecting sock/meat-puppets. ---J.S (t|c) 04:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But how can we be sure that a user is, in fact, a single purpose account? There's always a possibility of a user simply wanting to participate in an AfD as his first edit...--TBCΦtalk? 06:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Is it the term "single purpose account" that bothers you? When the template is used, the text that appears is "User has made few or no other edits outside this topic." It's a neutral and relevant observation. We don't have an equivalent of "residency requirements" (nor am I proposing them). But simply noting that a user's first action on Wikipedia is to participate in an XfD debate is not biting or uncivil. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why is the template still named "Spa", the acronym for "Signle purpose account"? Why not rename it to something else?--TBCΦtalk? 07:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You didn't propose renaming it, you proposed deleting it. In any event, the term itself is useful, descriptive, and well-understood. A single purpose account can also be a user whose only activities on Wikipedia are to create an article, then defend it in an AfD debate. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You asked earlier how we can be sure that a user is in fact a single purpose account? All we can know, and all the template indicates, is that up to this point in time, the user's only activity on Wikipedia has been to participate in this XfD debate (or activities relating to it, like creating the associated article). They may remain on Wikipedia and do great stuff in the future, but we have to make decisions today based on what we know today. And the reality is, comments from an apparent spa will probably count for less than comments from an established user. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concur with Jrobbo. —ptk✰fgs 07:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The rules regarding single-purpose accounts are of long standing and have good sense behind them, and so I feel almost precisely the opposite of the nominator: if we are to mark the XfD comments of those who have not yet attained a significant Wikipedia track record, it is not using this template that will count as WP:BITE. A template shows them that there are established rules on the subject; a notation to the same effect composed by an individual editor makes them think they are being singled out by that individual editor. I've seen the results and they aren't pretty. "Oh, he wants to tell everyone that this is only my first edit? All right, two can play at that game! I'll tell everyone that I searched the Web and discovered that he posts to swingers newsgroups!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - use of this template is much gentler than what would happen before, which was that non-standard additions would be made using the terms sock- and meatpuppet. The template is a much better and more consistent way of doing it, and is not "biting" the newcomer if used correctly. -999 (Talk) 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At this point, the discussion no longer seems to have a chance of gaining enough consensus for deletion, so I'm deciding to withdraw the nomination. However, I'd also like to note that though this template may be useful at times, I have a strong feeling that it can also be easily and heavily abused to discredit users in a dicussion. --TBCΦtalk? 19:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I really don't see how it can be "easily" used against users other than exactly the kind it is, in fact, meant for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Purplebox

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 WP:SNOWballing these. as junk. --humblefool ® 01:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another pinkbox clone, and just as useful as the others! [Can these be speedily deleted?] >< Richard06 12 ^UW 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, I like the colour purple~~ Delete. Why didn't you just group nominate these? --tjstrf talk 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Call me stupid but I didn't know that you could, don't worry, I know now. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though it is much, much nicer than the pink box. Neil916 (Talk) 16:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Jni. --ais523 13:14, 15 November 2006 (U T C)

Template:Everybody likes this game!

Serves no apparent purpose. Title of the template is about as long as the text! Pascal.Tesson 21:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "Game" is he referring to? Creating unusuall templates? 68.39.174.238 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I see no evidence that this isn't db-test, so I'll go and tag it as such. --ais523 11:18, 15 November 2006 (U T C)

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 Jni as a test page. --ais523 13:15, 15 November 2006 (U T C)

Template:Recycle It, Don't Trash It!

Same creator as the one above. The text is shorter than the template title. Pretty clear that this is a test page. Pascal.Tesson 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I don't usually make comments in TfDs, but that HAS to be the most ridiculous template I have ever seen. I'm laughing at it now... 68.39.174.238 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete huh? Yeah... delete it. ---J.S (t|c) 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-test, and tagged as such. --ais523 11:19, 15 November 2006 (U T C)

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.

Template:Monobox

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 WP:SNOWballing these as junk. --humblefool ® 01:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another 'Pinkbox' clone, see below for further info. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless. Making a single Template:colourbox with a variety of different options might be in order though, if we have a whole slew of these. --tjstrf talk 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the boxes are useful in concept, but there is no need to have 20 of them when single box using variables can serve any need. ---J.S (t|c) 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons to delete {{pinkbox}}. Neil916 (Talk) 16:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Yellowbox

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 WP:SNOWballing these as junk. --humblefool ® 01:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As below, this yellow version of the box is really useless. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 20:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's pinkbox... only uglier. --tjstrf talk 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons to delete {{pinkbox}}. Neil916 (Talk) 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Bluebox

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 WP:SNOWballing these as junk. --humblefool ® 01:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein to Pinkbox nominated earlier, this blue version is equally as useless. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though this one does looks rather nice, I don't see any use for it. --tjstrf talk 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons to delete {{pinkbox}}. Neil916 (Talk) 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:NicAgent

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. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was deprecated in favor of {{Blockedsockpuppet}}. Only incoming link is from an old TFD debate. Was previously listed Sept. 23. Moving on suggestion to list separately. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cant see a reason not to. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another existing template does this template's job just as well. Neil916 (Talk) 16:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WoW-imitator

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. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was deprecated in favor of {{Indefblockeduser}}. Only incoming link is from an old TFD debate and a user talk archive. Was previously listed Sept. 23. Moving on suggestion to list separately. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cant see why not. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another existing template does this template's job just as well. Neil916 (Talk) 16:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:TMECM

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. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was deprecated in favor of {{Blockedsockpuppet}}. Only incoming link is from an old TFD debate. Was previously listed Sept. 23. Moving on suggestion to list separately. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speaking as the creator, it's no longer needed, and I wouldn't create it nowadays anyway (WP:DR and all that). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and above comments. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. —[admin] Pathoschild 23:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, another existing template does this template's job just as well. Neil916 (Talk) 16:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:General Tojo

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. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Was deprecated in favor of {{Sockpuppet}}. No incoming links or transclusions. Was previously listed Sept. 23. Moving on suggestion to list separately. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cant think of a good reason not to. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another existing template does this template's job just as well. Neil916 (Talk) 16:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WordBomb

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. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was deprecated in favor of {{Blockedsockpuppet}}. Only incoming link is from an old TFD debate. Was previously listed Sept. 23. Moving on suggestion to list separately. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Again, cant think of a reason not to. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incedentally, suggest investigating this dude and M62, who seems to have been very involved with him. The sockpuppet categories may be worth merging. 68.39.174.238 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another existing template does this template's job just as well. Neil916 (Talk) 16:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Journal web reference issue

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. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depecated template. Only incoming link is from a talk archive. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Again, demon has selected an apporpriate template for deletion, I cant think of a reason not too. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, template code has been removed for some time. No use for this any more. Neil916 (Talk) 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Israelbeach

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. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was deprecated in favor of {{Blockedsockpuppet}}. All transclusions have been replaced. Only incoming links are from an old TFD debate, and a listing of some blocking templates in an archive of WP:AN/I. Was previously listed Sept. 23. Moving on suggestion to list separately. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom by demon. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Extra song version

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. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unused and deprecated to {{Extra tracklisting}}. Ashadeofgrey (talk · contribs) 10:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it has been replaced then lets axe it. Chris Kreider - Chrislk02 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by admin User:Fang Aili as db-author. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Conference Naional Venues

This template is unused and it has a correctly spelled counterpart (which is used). Suggestion: deletion JeffreySteer 10:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cant see why not. Chris Kreider - Chrislk02 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7. Obviously mistakenly created, author requests deletion. Neil916 (Talk) 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to the author/nominator: In cases like this, you can just place a {{db-author}} tag on the template to request a speedy deletion because you made it on accident. It isn't necessary to go through the whole TFD process in cases like this. Neil916 (Talk) 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Prime_Television_New_Zealand_primetime

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 relist.--humblefool ® 02:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In breach of Copyright, note similar discussion for other NZ freetoair channel: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_22#Template:TV3_.28New_Zealand.29_Primetime_Schedule). Collaborate 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate actual dicussion. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Silver Dollar City/SDC stub

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 relist.--humblefool ® 02:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're thinking - why have I brought this here rather than MFD? It isn't a template. Well, its creator seems to think it is, and it's currently being used as a template. And not a stub template either, despite its name. I've no objection to the Silver Dollar City WikiProject - all one member of it - having a template to put on articles about its rides but:

it should work properly (this one doesn't close, so any text placed after it is contained within the template);
it shouldn't be called something "stub", since it isn't a stub template;
it should really BE a template in template space, not a pseudo-attempted-template-page-thing.

As such, I'd suggest that this be fixed so that it works properly, moved to a name like Template:SDC ride, and the current mess be deleted. PS - if it's deemed that this should be at MFD rather than here, feel free to move it there - it really was a toss-up between the two! Grutness...wha? 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate actual discussion. --humblefool ® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was CSD G10 - crz crztalk 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Noob

Patent nonsense template. Only purpose is to print out a possible personal attack: You are a noob. You beg for free stuff. Suggest speedy deletion. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably speedily. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G10 and tagged as such. Even if the speedy doesn't stick, this is utterly incompatible with WP:BITE. --ais523 11:24, 14 November 2006 (U T C)

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.