Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 10

< September 9	September 11 >

September 10

Template:EET n°479 Dr. Manuel Pizarro

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EET n°479 Dr. Manuel Pizarro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~Single-use.~~ Unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article should probably use {{Infobox school}} instead. --RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just done that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (possibly a case for a speedy). Robofish (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox District Cambodia

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox District Cambodia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a member of the project, both Paxse and I opted to use the standard infobox. Himalayan 10:17, 11 September 2009 (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.

Congressional Record

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 discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CongRec (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:USCongRec (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Turns out there are two templates that do roughly the same thing but in different ways. They're both fine, but only one is needed. They should be consolidated and "USCongRec" should be the resultant name.—Markles 19:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems like a fine idea given the close similarity of the two templates. Does the existing {{USCongRec}} have all the functionality that is needed, or does some functionality from the other template need to be ported over? --RL0919 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: They have similar but not identical functionality. Their codes may need to be merged.—Markles 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference is that one displays the date of the particular issue cited. It should just be an issue of making it optional. Any idea how? -Rrius (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge by making CongRec a redirect to USCongRec. There are no pages in the article namespace that use it, and the others are either talk space or related to this TfD. In fact, CongRec seems to have been made for USA PATRIOT Act and only ever used elsewhere by accident (by me). I think it is time to close this and for an admin to make CongRec a a redirect. -Rrius (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I originally created USCongRec February 2007. CongRec was created by another editor in July 2007, and I only recently discovered its existence (as Rrius says, the template is hardley being used). USCongRec follows proper year/volume citations for the Congressional Record and should be retained. I like the idea of adding a date field to it and making it optional. Depending on how this discussion resolves itself, I can look at adding a date field. I'd need some help on the parameters, though.DCmacnut <> 01:36, 15 September 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox city of Panama

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox city of Panama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Done work on Panama myself and standard is used. Himalayan 10:20, 11 September 2009 (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.

Template:Royal Thai images

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Royal Thai images (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't believe that the Thai royal household releases their images under a Creative Commons license. Even if they did, this NC-ND version of the license would be inappropriate for Wikipedia, so even if the claim is true this is just another non-free template. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I, as a member of the project, would like to say agree, for this deletion. Because one of our member misunderstood the sources of the image files. So, this template should be deleted immediately. Thank you... (Monarchians)^(Talk)

Delete - not needed at this time, and unlikely ever to be. Already deleted at Commons. Robofish (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2009 (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.

Template:Romanian regions infobox

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romanian regions infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Himalayan 10:20, 11 September 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox Municipality in the Republic of Macedonia

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Municipality in the Republic of Macedonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having gone through Macedonian towns recently the project has opted for standard. Himalayan 10:18, 11 September 2009 (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.

Template:Statistical region of Slovenia

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Statistical region of Slovenia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what I'm concerned about is that the template per default gives the source for the data (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2004) not given by the generic {{Infobox Settlement}}. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References should be in the body of the article, not the infobox. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the source should not be coded into the infobox. If there is a situation where it seems appropriate to cite a source within the infobox, a standard refnote can be added in an appropriate spot. --RL0919 (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox Statistical Regions of the Republic of Macedonia

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Statistical Regions of the Republic of Macedonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Himalayan 10:18, 11 September 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox Systems scientist

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 discussion was Delete. NW (Talk) 21:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Systems scientist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Systems scientist H (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has very few uses and contains no fields which cannot be handled by {{infobox scientist}}. I would be happy to perform the conversion if the decision is to merge/delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Standardisation is good! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created this template, and I don't object. A systems scientist is never supposed to be just a specialist in just systems science. It would be nice if you would replace the last templates with normal scientists templates as well. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I created a second version of the template, see Template:Infobox Systems scientist H, which can be deleted all along. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marcel, I have joined the variant to the discussion. I went ahead and boldly converted the seven or eight article space transclusions. The ones in Marcel's namespace can be updated with a simple copy and paste, which I could do if requested. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This idea just didn't work out, so this is for the best. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since the creator and only major editor on both templates seems to agree, a G7 speedy delete should be possible. --RL0919 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete is fine with me to. (Just get it over with.) -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox Estonian County

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Estonian County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant, seemingly abandoned - unedited since the day it was created, over a year ago. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Himalayan 10:19, 11 September 2009 (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.

Infobox Municipalities of Portugal/ Infobox Municipality portugal

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Infobox Municipalities of Portugal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Municipality portugal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both unused, redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}, which is widely used for Municipalities of Portugal. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox Autonomous community

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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Autonomous community (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Only ~18 transclusions, which can be replaced with the more generic template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate per nom. Himalayan 10:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure this one is as redundant as the others. It has several fields that aren't in Infobox settlement, and Spanish Autonomous communities seem sufficiently unique that a separate template is justified. Robofish (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which fields? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate besides the fact that its messy, the general settlement template is able to include all the info already without this. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have created an example of the conversion to infobox settlement here. It was done by changing the backend to use {{infobox settlement}}, but keeping the frontend the same. The code is in the sandbox. If this TFD closes as delete, this version can be used to substitute all uses. Otherwise, I would suggest at the very least using this as the new backend. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plastikspork's examples make it clear that {{Infobox settlement}} can replace this, and looks better, too. --RL0919 (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate - no technical reason for a separate template here. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox District CZ

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox District CZ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, Seemingly abandoned. ({{Infobox Czech district}} redirects there) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Himalayan 10:20, 11 September 2009 (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.

Template:Mountain bike manufacturers

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 discussion was delete as redundant to a category. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mountain bike manufacturers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

My primary reason is that this piece will work better as a category than a template, also this lot appears to been ripped off from list of bicycle manufacturing companies. Also my personal problem with this template is that as almost every major bicycle manufacturer/brands have a MTB in their lineup no matter how many blue or redlinks are there, we will be cluttered with too many entries hence explaining why my primary reason would be a better idea. Donnie Park (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnecessary clutter if eventually somebody "fulfill" the navbox with more articles from here. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created template to organize the relatively few MTB manufacturers. I am open to constructive criticism - perhaps the template should cover only dedicated-MB manufacturers. And no, I did not use that list - only articles in the related category. Mountain bikes are fundamentally different from others; I feel they warrant a unifying template. Andyo2000 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One critism of this template is can Land Rover be considered to be a manufacturer of mountain bikes, when like Porsche Design and a lot of other car manufacturers who also sell mountain bikes as I stated on this discussion, that all they do is subcontract somebody else to manufacture bikes and then provide their own brand to sell cars, plus if LR is to be listed, we may as well list Nike and Adidas should they decide to sell their own branded MTBs. For a template that covers only dedicated-MB manufacturers wouldn't work, a number of these have branched into the urban bike market, therefore that will exclude most of them. Donnie Park (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:CLN guideline: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems" --Tothwolf (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I recommend splitting the articles off into separate countries as my concern is that that article is too big for its own template plus it is a scope to turn itself into a oversized template that will be too big to be useful, therefore I recommend ~~Split then delete~~. Donnie Park (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, this template needs to differentate itself from whether it is a template for manufacturers or brandnames who was previously a manufacturer with no involvment in mountain bike manufacturing. IMO, it is nowadays hard to tell them apart unless you are a historian of mountain biking. Donnie Park (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then, since I cannot differentate the difference between brands who was previously a manufacturer who never made mountain bikes and those who also have a mountain bike in their brand, I will stick with my decision to delete. Donnie Park (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tothwolf. –droll [chat] 01:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary. This is what categories are made for. Garion96 (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems worse than the category in this case; depending on how it's interpreted, this template could become very large and unwieldly. Robofish (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see categorizing manufactures by country giving much value. We are living in world where much is going global and it's hard giving companies nationalities. --Kslotte (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2009 (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.

Template:Ft icon

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ft icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nonexistent ISO language code. — neuro^(talk) 10:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict: This template has only been used by User:Nima Farid for advertising his own constructed language on Wikipedia. Consequently it should be deleted. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and don't see where it would be used, since there is no legitimate "Ft" language code. Someone needs to read WP:MADEUP. --RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2009 (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.

Template:ISO 639 name ft

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISO 639 name ft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nonexistent ISO language code. — neuro^(talk) 10:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasoning as companion template immediately above. --RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2009 (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.