| < October 18 | October 20 > |
|---|
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Merged into Template:TNA Championships, therefore this template is useless.. Kip Smithers T/ C 20:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, template is deprecated. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rai- me 00:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 20:09, 26 October 2007 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete - test page. Mike Peel 22:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Template does not really serve a purpose, it only adds 'MOREP' to pages. Template is only being used on creator's userpage. Cheers, Lights ( ♣ • ♦) 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete G2 - test page. JPG-GR 20:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - per above. This is a test template that serves no purpose. Rai- me 20:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:23, 20 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Obsoleted by {{ Infobox Military Person}}. As such, I converted the single article that was using it. — Maralia 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nominator's statement. Serves no purpose now that it is deprecated. ~ Sebi [talk] 00:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, this template is deprecated. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rai- me 00:14, 21 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Unused, and obsoleted by {{ Infobox Military Unit}}. — Maralia 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nominator's statement. Serves no purpose now that it is deprecated. ~ Sebi [talk] 00:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rai- me 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, deprecated. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 20:09, 26 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Template is way too large, wishy-washy, and doesn't really WP:AGF.. SarekOfVulcan 17:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. There are typos, the template is very large and poorly formatted IMO, and I agree that is does not adhere to WP:AGF. Rai- me 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Removing information from articles because it is "not fair"? Doesn't make any sense at all. --- RockMFR 17:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The template itself does not make much sense and seems to me pretty useless. Tankred 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Additionally, template is not properly formatted to fit with the other article messageboxes. JPG-GR 18:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Other templates can be used in its stead. •Malinaccier• T/ C 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, this template is pretty useless. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep and improve:
- could be shrunken by making images inline with text
- Asks for WP:NPOV repairs, not useless
- Spelling mistakes can be corrected
- WP:USELESS
- Delete. If what's meant is "this article is written from a specific religion's point of view", then the appropriate template is {{ npov}}. If what's meant is "this might offend people of certain religions", then I'd point the author to the Wikipedia content disclaimer. Zetawoof( ζ) 23:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- 'Delete per nom. I don't see where this could ever really be used. -- θnce θn this island Speak 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete duplication of {{ npov}} - why not simply use that template with an explanation -which should be given when placing the NPOV anyway, to clarify what specific point the placer of the template is referring. SkierRMH 20:08, 26 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For same reasons outlined in the nominations of Template:DallasBuildings and Template:DallasBuildingsCore. This template is contained within Template:DallasBuildingsCore, and they appear identical, except for the inclusion of a See also link. — Rai- me 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. One template is enough. Tankred 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't need multiple templates
- Delete - unneeded. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Delete as redundant. SkierRMH 19:47, 26 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For same reasons outlined in Template:DallasBuildings's nomination. This template is contained within Template:DallasBuildings, and they appear identical, except for the inclusion of the title '''Tallest structures in Dallas'''. — Rai- me 17:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. One template is enough. Tankred 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - unneeded. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as superfluous redundancy. SkierRMH 19:46, 26 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Dallas skyscrapers has been created, and now lists the top 5 buildings covered in this template, as well as the city's other 27 tallest buildings. This template is unnecessary given the creation of the newer one. The new template does not include heights or "listing by roof height" as this template does, but these are also unnecessary given that List of tallest buildings and structures in Dallas, which is linked in the new template, thoroughly covers the height of all of the city's taller buildings, and "listing by roof" is just a way to show that the Renaissance Tower can be measured in different ways, which should be covered on the Renaissance Tower's page and not in a template. — Rai- me 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and as deprecated. JPG-GR 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - unneeded. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 19:45, 26 October 2007 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete - recreation of deleted template. Mike Peel 22:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see the point behind this, and it's an orphan anyway.. SarekOfVulcan 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- If it was to be used, the only purpose that it would serve is to cause confusion and annoyance. An example to show what the bar looks like when it pops up would be better off appearing in the appropriate Help: page. Delete. ~ Sebi [talk] 00:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as G4 (recreation) per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_26#Template:Newmessage. The instructions not to use the template as a template are obviously some sort of Wikilawyering attempt, but they don't change the community consensus to delete these sort of templates. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Per above, almost like a test. •Malinaccier• T/ C 19:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above comments. Rai- me 19:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. This template has been re-created. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:21, 20 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Unused template which doesn't have any clear purpose. What exactly is "plagarism watch", anyway? There are procedures for dealing with copyvios, but this isn't one of them — Pak21 12:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rai- me 00:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, this template is vague. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 17:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no "plagiarism watch" process; placing this template on an article is not only useless (because it's unlikely to catch anyone's attention) but harmful (because it leads to effort wasted in tagging pages, as well as seriously ugly templates atop articles). Zetawoof( ζ) 20:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- θnce θn this island Speak 23:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Template:Copyvio really covers the issue, as there are several steps that are to be followed if a copyvio is actually suspected. SkierRMH 19:44, 26 October 2007 (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.
- 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 Jbeach56. Whispe ring 11:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Template related to WikiProject Pwn. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pwn. — The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, this was speedied.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:11, 19 October 2007 (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.
| < October 18 | October 20 > |
|---|
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Merged into Template:TNA Championships, therefore this template is useless.. Kip Smithers T/ C 20:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, template is deprecated. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rai- me 00:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 20:09, 26 October 2007 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete - test page. Mike Peel 22:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Template does not really serve a purpose, it only adds 'MOREP' to pages. Template is only being used on creator's userpage. Cheers, Lights ( ♣ • ♦) 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete G2 - test page. JPG-GR 20:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - per above. This is a test template that serves no purpose. Rai- me 20:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:23, 20 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Obsoleted by {{ Infobox Military Person}}. As such, I converted the single article that was using it. — Maralia 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nominator's statement. Serves no purpose now that it is deprecated. ~ Sebi [talk] 00:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, this template is deprecated. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rai- me 00:14, 21 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Unused, and obsoleted by {{ Infobox Military Unit}}. — Maralia 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nominator's statement. Serves no purpose now that it is deprecated. ~ Sebi [talk] 00:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rai- me 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, deprecated. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 20:09, 26 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Template is way too large, wishy-washy, and doesn't really WP:AGF.. SarekOfVulcan 17:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. There are typos, the template is very large and poorly formatted IMO, and I agree that is does not adhere to WP:AGF. Rai- me 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Removing information from articles because it is "not fair"? Doesn't make any sense at all. --- RockMFR 17:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The template itself does not make much sense and seems to me pretty useless. Tankred 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Additionally, template is not properly formatted to fit with the other article messageboxes. JPG-GR 18:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Other templates can be used in its stead. •Malinaccier• T/ C 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, this template is pretty useless. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep and improve:
- could be shrunken by making images inline with text
- Asks for WP:NPOV repairs, not useless
- Spelling mistakes can be corrected
- WP:USELESS
- Delete. If what's meant is "this article is written from a specific religion's point of view", then the appropriate template is {{ npov}}. If what's meant is "this might offend people of certain religions", then I'd point the author to the Wikipedia content disclaimer. Zetawoof( ζ) 23:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- 'Delete per nom. I don't see where this could ever really be used. -- θnce θn this island Speak 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete duplication of {{ npov}} - why not simply use that template with an explanation -which should be given when placing the NPOV anyway, to clarify what specific point the placer of the template is referring. SkierRMH 20:08, 26 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For same reasons outlined in the nominations of Template:DallasBuildings and Template:DallasBuildingsCore. This template is contained within Template:DallasBuildingsCore, and they appear identical, except for the inclusion of a See also link. — Rai- me 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. One template is enough. Tankred 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't need multiple templates
- Delete - unneeded. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Delete as redundant. SkierRMH 19:47, 26 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For same reasons outlined in Template:DallasBuildings's nomination. This template is contained within Template:DallasBuildings, and they appear identical, except for the inclusion of the title '''Tallest structures in Dallas'''. — Rai- me 17:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. One template is enough. Tankred 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - unneeded. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as superfluous redundancy. SkierRMH 19:46, 26 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Dallas skyscrapers has been created, and now lists the top 5 buildings covered in this template, as well as the city's other 27 tallest buildings. This template is unnecessary given the creation of the newer one. The new template does not include heights or "listing by roof height" as this template does, but these are also unnecessary given that List of tallest buildings and structures in Dallas, which is linked in the new template, thoroughly covers the height of all of the city's taller buildings, and "listing by roof" is just a way to show that the Renaissance Tower can be measured in different ways, which should be covered on the Renaissance Tower's page and not in a template. — Rai- me 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and as deprecated. JPG-GR 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - unneeded. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 19:45, 26 October 2007 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete - recreation of deleted template. Mike Peel 22:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see the point behind this, and it's an orphan anyway.. SarekOfVulcan 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- If it was to be used, the only purpose that it would serve is to cause confusion and annoyance. An example to show what the bar looks like when it pops up would be better off appearing in the appropriate Help: page. Delete. ~ Sebi [talk] 00:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as G4 (recreation) per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_26#Template:Newmessage. The instructions not to use the template as a template are obviously some sort of Wikilawyering attempt, but they don't change the community consensus to delete these sort of templates. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Per above, almost like a test. •Malinaccier• T/ C 19:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above comments. Rai- me 19:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. This template has been re-created. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:21, 20 October 2007 (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.
- 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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Unused template which doesn't have any clear purpose. What exactly is "plagarism watch", anyway? There are procedures for dealing with copyvios, but this isn't one of them — Pak21 12:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rai- me 00:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, this template is vague. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 17:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no "plagiarism watch" process; placing this template on an article is not only useless (because it's unlikely to catch anyone's attention) but harmful (because it leads to effort wasted in tagging pages, as well as seriously ugly templates atop articles). Zetawoof( ζ) 20:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- θnce θn this island Speak 23:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Template:Copyvio really covers the issue, as there are several steps that are to be followed if a copyvio is actually suspected. SkierRMH 19:44, 26 October 2007 (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.
- 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 Jbeach56. Whispe ring 11:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Template related to WikiProject Pwn. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pwn. — The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, this was speedied.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:11, 19 October 2007 (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.