Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 13 March 15 >

March 14

[edit]

Template:Alabama NRHP date for lists

[edit]
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 all --Magioladitis (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alabama NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also nominating:

Template:Arizona NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:California NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Connecticut NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Delaware NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Florida NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kentucky NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Maryland NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Massachusetts NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Michigan NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Minnesota NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Missouri NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Hampshire NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Jersey NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:OHNRHPDate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pennsylvania NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rhode Island NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Texas NRHP weekly update (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vermont NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Virginia NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Washington NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wisconsin NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated project templates. The template {{NRHP date for lists}} was created to consolidate each individual state's template into only one template. The templates for Geeorgia and New York were nominated on the 6th --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 17:36, 14 March 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:10000 or more runs in Test and ODI Cricket

[edit]
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 --Magioladitis (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:10000 or more runs in Test and ODI Cricket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are already templates for 10,000 runs in Tests and ODIs so this is just repeating the information, it serves no navigational purpose as the players have already been linked to twice. Jpeeling (talk) 16:26, 14 March 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:Let it develop

[edit]
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. Happy‑melon 15:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current template:
Template:Let it develop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The purpose of this template is basically to denigrate "omniscient" editors from "North America". It lacks an assumption of good faith on the part of other editors, and there are already policies and processes in place which deal with the deletion of articles, and articles are judged on notability amongst other things. There is no sound reason for this template at all. Russavia Dialogue 12:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteComment as not AGF in any way. (added comment) I would hope that the creator substantially modifies wording so that no one can err in understanding a reasonable meaning. (end added comment) Had it been a userbox on a userpage, I would say "keep" as expressing an opinion, but as a tmplate for use on an article -- nay. Collect (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Collect (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Suitable as a userbox, but as a warning on an article page? No way.—Kww(talk) 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, this is not a question of "assume good faith." Just speaking for the Baltic countries, and I see this elsewhere, we have editors who have not participated in the Baltic space (at all) routinely nominating articles for deletion for which the subject matter is important and significant, whether: politicians and personalities, commercial enterprises (that is, not self-promotional articles, obviously), cultural performance groups (choirs, dance groups). The latest was a nomination indicating that Riga was an "insignificant community." If we spent half the time improving articles that we waste on perpetual uninformed AfDs, we would all use our time more wisely. I suggest then simply keeping only the first sentence of the template as editors here have mistaken it to be an assumption of bad faith. It is not, it is a request to not AfD that which you are unfamiliar with; because you are unfamiliar with something does not mean it is not significant and notable to millions of people on this planet. I'm sorry, but Russavia's nomination here given their adversarial relationship to the editors creating and discussing the template and potential improvement, a conversation still in progress, is what smacks of not assuming good faith. You want to improve WP? Engage in discourse first, don't rush to nominate for deletion without a single word. Russaia's nomination in the absence of engaging in discourse is gaming the system, nothing more. PetersV       TALK 16:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it amusing how somebody has rushed to delete a 'don't rush to delete' template, but it's actually sad. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I sympathize with the problem of 'never heard of it' AFD noms, but this isn't a solution. If we start plastering articles with 'think twice before nominating this article for deletion', where do we stop? Maralia (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the current sample is quite clear in pointing to editors to a place for dialog prior to nominating for deletion. "Sympathy" without fixing the problem, at least for one set of articles, doesn't help us improve WP, it guarantees we'll continue to go around in circles. Thanks! PetersV       TALK 18:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I envision this template not as much as a preemptive device as a recurrence avoidance mechanism. It could also work wonders as replacement for uninformed speedy deletion tags. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 'recurrence avoidance mechanism' is the notice on article talk of any previous AFD result. Again, if we start tagging articles 'don't delete this because group X says it's important', where do we stop? Why is tagging less-familiar nationality-related articles any more important or necessary than tagging less-familiar operas, or frog species, or poems? Maralia (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks, not when you have openly ignored WP:AGF by stating that I am acting in bad faith with this nomination. And most certainly not when the creator of the template did so to counter what he calls "clowns". When an article is all of twelve words long and is unsourced, it is excuseable for an editor to think that a subject is not notable, and hence take it to AfD. The very fact of the matter is, is that if an article is present on WP, it needs to be sourced in such a way that notability is established. Information that isn't sourced can be removed without question. These are all from policies, which makes this template absolutely redundant. If people don't want such things being taken to AfD in the future, then source the article. This is very simply one of the basic tenents on which Wikipedia operates, and makes this template un-needed. --Russavia Dialogue 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After you went out of your way in seeking a pretext for bad faith, violating NPA in the process, WP:SPADE applies. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, stop, when you state "Check out Wikipedia talk:Baltic States notice board, the discussion of a clown who attempted to seriously argue that Riga, Latvia's capital, is such a "non-notable community" that its mayor is not "inherently notable".", and when that is said clearly in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andris Ārgalis, blind Freddy could see exactly who you directed that comment towards, and in which context you used the word "clown". The only clown here is the one who would believe for a second that it wasn't clearly directed at a single editor, and that you didn't use the word in the context of "being an idiot/ignoramus"; that was evident by the wording of the template directed at omniscient North Americans. Stop deluding yourself. Now, if that's all Digwuren, I've got articles to edit. --Russavia Dialogue 20:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia, you say the template needs discussion as to what it would apply to, yet your first action was to nominate for deletion--which appears to be rather backpedaling on your part. You revert the template during discussion here to "what you nominated" when the most cursory check would have indicated it was still under development and continues to be under development. Your dismissive attitude and attempts to delete a work in progress based on an earlier version is not enhancing the dialog here. I apologize that I don't see this as constructive editorial dialog on your part. Confrontational or constructive, your choice, I prefer to dance to the latter. PetersV       TALK 23:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not back-pedalling in any way. I have said it is a useless template as it is covered by other less negative templates, and that the initiators of the template have not even discussed on what articles it would be placed, but rather rushed to create a template which castigates stupid Yanks. Additionally, please check your facts again in saying I reverted the template, because I haven't reverted a thing - the only thing that was reverted, by another user, was the placement of the speedy deletion outside of process. --Russavia Dialogue 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I live in a non-English-speaking country, I've seen ignorant native speakers AfDing and supporting the deletion of notable topics relating to my country, but in the end, a sizeable group of en.wikipedians and most admins recognize the systematic bias and deal with it appropriately. I am concerned that this template muddies the water more than it helps, so I recommend deletion. – sgeureka t•c 17:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem most endemic to the "ignorance" phenomenon is that when creating an article on something of national/societal significance to a country, there is no standard means for providing pointer for where to go if one has questions regarding notability. Every AfD I have seen that has resulted in a "keep" has taken 10x to 100x times the community effort required as compared to someone having simply been pointed to a place to ask about an article before nominating it for deletion. You are correct, there is a process, and we should and cannot flog editors for their ignorance. However, it is incumbent upon us to find a way to promote dialog ahead of constant uninformed deletion nominations regarding significant nation-related topics, as opposed to continually rushing to close the barn doors after the cows have already escaped. PetersV       TALK 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The logical conclusion would be that hundreds of thousands of non-American articles get orange-"alert"-tagged preemptively and for a permanent time. This reminds me of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. – sgeureka t•c 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There absolutely is a standard for "providing pointer for where to go if one has questions regarding notability" ... it's called "sourcing". If you provide links to reliable independent sources for the facts contained in an article, it will inevitably pass WP:N. If there aren't such sources available, the article should be deleted no matter what country the topic is located in.—Kww(talk) 20:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vecrumba. See his changes - this template has potential. Let it develop! --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have changed the template to exactly what it was when I nominated it, so that other editors can see exactly what I mean by denigrating other editors. --Russavia Dialogue 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More of gaming the system. You're arguing that the current version must be deleted because you didn't like the first version? Sheesh! ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Digwuren, as you have been banned for a year from WP, and have only just returned, you should know that there are guidelines and policies in place on WP, and that it is considered rude to remove things in discussions placed by other editors. The template as it was created by yourself, i.e. the stupid Americans template, was placed above the other template which an editor saw fit to include, so that perspective was available in regards to the reasons for the nomination in the first place. Please stop distorting the facts, it isn't helping any. Read everything else I have written, and which several other people have written; they are the reasons it should be deleted. --Russavia Dialogue 03:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, talk about a one-man disinformation bureau. Tell it exactly how it happened Digwuren. --Russavia Dialogue 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, systematic bias is a well recognised phenomenon within Wikipedia, this template is a necessary reminder. Martintg (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment This template could also be seen legitimising "it's important" arguments for AfDs. Wikipedia already has built-in guidelines and policies which act counter WP:BIAS; WP:N being one of those major guidelines. I will argue that every article on Wikipedia is of some importance to another group somewhere around the world. What hasn't even been discussed is exactly what articles this template would be placed on. I know for certain that if it were ever to appear on a Russia-related article, I would remove it post-haste and replace it with {{WikiProject Russia}}. And that should go for every other subject as well; we have WikiProject banners for this kind of thing; just they don't fail to assume good faith such as this template. This template could also be seen as an end-run around WP:N in conjunction with WP:V. Why should we be any less demanding on articles just because someone somewhere thinks it's important; and who determines whether it's important; that in itself is a subjective thing. If an article abided by long-established guidelines and policies in the first place, then there is no need for editors to question the legitimacy of articles. Just because a single editor may not regard Riga as the centre of the earth, and this hurts other feelings, that is not reason enough for this in-your-face template, when other long-standing ways are available. --Russavia Dialogue 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should we tag most articles then? WikiProject Latvia has more than 1,700 articles at the moment. Monitor your watchlist instead and act when articles gets nominated for AfD's - that's what I did and probably the reason why anyone reacted after I posted this to different projects. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about an explicit documentation saying that this template is for stub articles? Hit-and-run deletionists are rather unlikely to target non-stub articles -- and the sourcing on those ought to be good enough to satisfy any reasonable scrutiny. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen three notability AfD's on Latvian subjects the last year, two of them being bundled articles. Even though it is annoying to have an article nominated, it does not happen on a frequent basis. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would remove it from any Russia-related stubs as explained above. We have wikiproject templates for use on talk pages, which is where I am assuming this would be placed? (I assume that, because this hasn't even been proposed where it would be placed). The wikiproject template would be assessed for class and importance, and there is a notice within template that it is within scope of a particular project. It's my own opinion that unsourced one line stubs are useless for the project; I mean big deal if the article is on some joe-blow who is whatever. If it's unsourced it is right that it is challenged; regardless of content. I am seeing more often editors arguing to keep unsourced articles, when this goes against the very core policies that we are supposed to be adhering to. Applying it to stubs is also not a positive thing. Take for example, Pavel Ubri, I could have simply said he was a Russian diplomat and not sourced it, and apply this template. But that's not how we work; additional information was added, it was all sourced, and it had the stub template including encouraging other editors to expand it; rather than urging them to ignore policy and not delete it, whilst treating them like idiots by ramming home the "just coz you haven't heard of it...blah blah blah...message"; and dare I say it, rewarding sub-standard editing; sorry but an unsourced ten word article with zero sources is substandard editing, and we would be better off with a redlink. I can't help but think of an Afd from not long ago -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksei Vorobyev and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Vorobyov (singer) (2nd nomination). The nominator in those instances was well within policy for nominating it; although the first AfD was not quite on, given the 60 second time period between creation and nomination; but the second AfD nomination was justified. With this template, we would be asking other editors to leave unsourced articles alone, and that IMO is just not on. If people established sourced notability to begin with, that AfD would not have occurred, and it is the same with the AfD which caused this template to be created, and it is the same with every other article on which this template is being suggested it could be placed on. Whilst we are asking editors to assume good faith with such articles, more importantly, we should be asking editors to also source their additions, particularly when that is made very clear all over WP. --Russavia Dialogue 23:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For all the good reasons noted above.--Levalley (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]

  • delete adds template clutter. The wikProject tag does the same function.DGG (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Part of the purpose of the template is to provide a pointer to the most appropriate place for editorial discussion, which may change based on the interested editorial community. The main issue is that we continue to swarm in reactive after-the-fact fashion when it would only take a few simple steps to promote the appropriate dialog before nominating for deletion. Aren't we tired of a process which depends on (a) constant monitoring of numerous pages and (b) then having to inform editors of their error? That is a negative and reactive, not positive and proactive, process. (I have no issue with setting the template to auto-expire, say, 4 to 6 weeks after article creation, it's not meant to permanently ward off deletion, if merited.) PetersV       TALK 23:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually the wiki-project tag just clutters the talk page, where people adding speedy-delete tags to the article are unlikely to see it. Also, edits to the article will not show up in Special:Relatedchanges for the wiki-project category due to apparent technical limitations as the category contains only the talk page. I would favor a system where the talk page banners are abolished and the wiki-project info is applied directly to the article using hidden categories and other matter which is invisible by default, but which enough people find useful to change their own settings in order to see it. Consider the "persondata" template, for example. — CharlotteWebb 13:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there should be a doc page for this template. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to {{expand}} or make it a talk page template. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limit to talk pages (or delete). This is one of those templates that could be kept on an article indefinitely, which is always a bad sign - article templates are meant to be temporary. While it might well be true that most of our readers are ignorant of matters relating to countries like Latvia, that doesn't mean we should draw attention to that with a large template that just clutters up articles. I wouldn't mind seeing this on a talk page, but it's inappropriate for use on articles. Robofish (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If on an article, it should not be on for more than the first 4-6 weeks (a bot could scrub). It's most definitely not intended to be a hands off. PetersV       TALK 04:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to specific templates and examples where they have worked, including directing editors to an appropriate community for discussion? There's far too much reliance on the assumption that all editors are template-savvy. I don't see where a template pointing editors to a discussion community is in any way a potential AGF violation. Thanks! PetersV       TALK 15:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though I can not prove they work in the sense you are wanting, WP:TMAIN has the templates I was referring to. Also, {{ActiveDiscuss}} directs editors to the talk page for discussion. It is a potential AGF violation not because it points people to a discussion board but because the template implies that other editors find Ruritania articles unimportant. No amount of rewording would change this in my mind. All editors are NOT template-savvy, which is exactly why adding this incredibly specific template to the mix is not helpful and using the ones I mention is easier since they are universal. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sets an extremely bad precedent. If kept, then definitely limit to talk pages. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant to {{under construction}}, with additional helpings of bad faith and denigration of readers for being deletionist barbarians. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete precedent is horrible for this. Does this go on any stub anyone feels like? Does it ever go away, i.e. can someone keep a huge unsourced BLP violation for years because it possibly could be important? Is it for use only when there is an AFD or as a preventative measure to keep people from nominating things for deletion? Even things under construction can be nominated for AFD if they really, really want. People do realize that it is entirely possible for there to be something that is not in the Western world that is also not notable. Currently, it's at Eero Loone which has five somewhat clear sources but still a number of unsourced statements. Do we ignore WP:BLP and WP:V just because it's somewhere foreign? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was placed by Digwuren at Sharopoyezd, and another editor has removed the ugly template. I am glad that another editor has removed it, and not I, because it somewhat proves my point that it is ugly and not need on articles. It's existence on Eero Loone is somewhat pointish as well. --Russavia Dialogue 04:45, 22 March 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:Nagraj

[edit]
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 --Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

All redlinks, except 3 redirects, 1 AfDed article, and two legitimate links. No need for a template. (Template was created in July 2008.) – sgeureka t•c 09:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:19, 14 March 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:Sexology-project-guidelines-notify

[edit]
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. --Magioladitis (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sexology-project-guidelines-notify (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused blank template, which according to edit history didn't pass policy so isn't used. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 08:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:18, 14 March 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:2007-08 Pac 10 basketball standings

[edit]
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 --Magioladitis (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007-08 Pac 10 basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template which hasn't been edited in nearly 15 months. There's no usable information here anyway (the teams listed aren't part of the Pac-10), so if this becomes a desired template at a later date, it would need to be completely overhauled anyway. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:46, 14 March 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:Nuwaubian

[edit]
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 --Magioladitis (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only two pages in template, superfluous. Articles can be linked through normal means. Sloane (talk) 04:27, 14 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_14&oldid=1142563298"