Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 6

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! 07:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:H2O (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

orphaned – previously used in only two articles, in which I substituted the template, however substitution of this template is not necessary as its substituted text is brief — Crashintome4196 21:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Only minimally useful compared to the element templates in Category:Chemical element symbol templates, and it's unnecessary to link every instance of H₂O. I really wouldn't object if some editors actually find it easier to subst short templates like this though. –Pomte 13:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak weak delete - while very similar to certain entries in the above category, there really is no complicated _sub and ^sup syntax to clean up. The idea of elements may be a good one, but the idea of molecules, not as much. There's a lot of those :) (I would also think that using water in wikitext is better than using the chemical formula.) Gracenotes^T § 00:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The syntax isn't really that complicated even were one to type the text manually without substitution. Also, Pomte makes a good point; it does seem rather unnecessary to link every instance of the usage of H₂O. Kyra_~(talk) 07:26, 8 April 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. --ais523 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Bedrijf NL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template appears to be an infobox for Dutch companies. It is written in Dutch. Redundant to Infobox Company, I guess, and not currently transcluded anywhere. — mholland 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete orignal edit summary labels it as a "test." Most likely copied form the Dutch WP, redundant to Infobox company. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant to Template:Infobox Company, the language of the template being in Dutch, and the creator declaring the template's creation a test. Kyra_~(talk) 07:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's Dutch, and a direct translation of Infobox Company. A bit weird, since the dutch wikipedia has other templates for this already, so I'm a bit stumped as to why he would create this... --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:34, 12 April 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 no consensus. I prefer not to close hot debates without a resolution, but I think there is good reason here. First of all, a significant issue in the debate is whether the template can stand without the article Allegations of apartheid, which was deleted but overturned at AfD and is now relisted, with no clear outcome. The majority of the arguments here depend strongly on whether or not that deletion will stand / be repeated... and the consensus is not strong either way. So, as much as it would be nice to get to a conclusion here, it would be premature. Mangojuice^talk 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Allegations of apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (second nomination) was deleted after consensus found that it violated SYNT/OR because of the wide variety of contexts in which "apartheid" is used within this article. Setting up this equivalency was therefore a novel synthesis. This template, used to connect disparate themes such as sexual discrimination in Islamic countries with Cuba's tourism policy of the 1990s, should be deleted for the same reason. Zleitzen^(talk) 16:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per Zleitzen and the AfD. The template collects pretty unrelated articles - "Brazilian apartheid" is essentially a collection of quotes, not all of which are even allegations (and it's up for AfD, which hopefully will succeed). "Cuban tourist apartheid" describes a phenomena that is admittedly referred to as "apartheid" but really describes an unfair tourist policy. Previous alleged-apartheid articles have already been deleted. There's no need for this template.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There was no clear consensus for deletion, and the article will probably have to be listed at WP:RFU. This template helps join a number of articles related by common issues of alleged discrimination and verbal hyperbole regarding it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per Zleitzen.Kritt 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This template was created to further an argument that many countries face these allegations. I have no problem with this argument, but that's what it is.[1][2] The corresponding problem is that the banner includes solely these loosely connected minor articles, without even the actual articles that connect them, those being Apartheid, Crime of Apartheid, Allegations of Apartheid (if rerecreated), since the visual effect of such a larger banner would tend to go in the other political direction. Even if retained, however, this banner invites such a larger banner on "Apartheid" which would simply raise further problems. Mackan79 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per Zleitzen and Mackan. Very obvious case of WP:SYN. Creates moreover a very bad precedent – Allegations of ethnic cleansing, Allegations of genocide, Allegations of slavery, etc. – wherein metaphorical invocations and direct comparisons can be strategically conflated for the purpose of POV-pushing apologetics.--G-Dett 20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the main article had no consensus for deletion and is under DRV. As long as there are sub articles titled "allegations of apartheid", I see no reason why they shouldn't be organised. If you have a problem with an article's content, take it up there. Tewfik^Talk 20:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why organise a set of 4 articles that refer to gender in Islam, tourism in cuba, race in Brazil and the Israeli-Palestinian issue simply because one of the words in the title is similar? -- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not about a similarity of words, but about a similarity of allegation; specifically, that the countries in question are guilty of the Crime of Apartheid. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cuba is not "guilty of the crime of apartheid". It simply created expensive private hotels and beaches solely for foreign tourists to encourage growth during an economic crisis. The slang or informal term for this is "tourist apartheid". How is that situation anything to do with gender issues in Islam, or the Israeli-Palestinian issue? So far, only wikipedia editors have linked these subjects. Which is original research.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that's actually correct. Neither the "social apartheid" discussed in Brazil, or the "tourist apartheid" discussed in Cuba, or even the "gender apartheid" or "religious apartheid" discussed in Islam or Saudi Arabia for that matter actually appear to have anything to do with the crime of apartheid. Indeed, that's exactly the false suggestion of the banner. Mackan79 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Social apartheid" in Brazil is about the oppression of Afro-Brazilians. The people who use the term specifically state it is about race. How could that not be related to the "Crime of apartheid"? By the way, why don't you bring up Allegations of Israeli apartheid in this regard? It's rather symptomatic of the whole problem here; one article is "real", and about a "crime", the others are not. And yet, "social apartheid" is actually about what is commonly seen as a "racial" issue; whites vs. blacks. On the other hand, the Israeli-Palestinian issue could hardly be, or are you alleging that Israelis and Palestinians are different "races"? I hope not, that in itself would be both incorrect (at least according to recent genetic studies), and, frankly, racist. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please reread what I said, which is exactly what you just said in much stranger form. The problem is exactly that the situations are different, and only connected in this banner by our original research. Did you have a response to this? Mackan79 20:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I already responded to it. Either the accusation of "apartheid" is meaningful, in which case they're related, or the accusation is a mere rhetorical device, in which case the articles should all be deleted, and the underlying situations described be placed in more relevant places. You can't have it both ways. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you support its replacement, though, with a larger template on Apartheid and related articles? This seems to be the precedent, where for instance Anarchism in Austria has a Template:Anarchism, not simply Template:Examples of Anarchism or Template:Anarchism around the World. Mackan79 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - some politicians seem to push the term into the mainstream lately. Why not follow common WP practice: organize the similar articles into a template? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How is an article about Gender issues in Islam "similar" to an article about Cuba's tourist beaches and hotels of the 1990s?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Because in both cases the same rhetorical device is used: likening it to apartheid. That's what the articles are dealing with, and the template. It's not about the pertinence of the political activism thus depicted. --tickle me 15:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this encyclopedia now band articles together on the basis of rhetorical devices? How about we create the series "allegations of fascism", and have a template to every article where the subject has been described as fascist via a rhetorical device? -- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If these articles are merely documenting "rhetorical devices", then they should all be deleted. Those supporting them, particularly those supporting the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, insist it is not a "rhetorical device", but actual documentation of a crime. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

They're not merely about rhetorical advices; they're actually about very different situations. The point is that the rhetorical device is all that ties most of them together. Mackan79 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Either the accusation of "apartheid" is meaningful, in which case they're related, or the accusation is a mere rhetorical device, in which case the articles should all be deleted, and the underlying situations described be placed in more relevant places. You can't have it both ways. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - "apartheid" is an overused rhetorical device, and this template demonstrates where the allegations are used. --Leifern 22:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  This logic seems uncomfortably close to WP:POINT (ie. using a template to make a political statement about the term). CJCurrie 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  The original Israel article seems to me to have been created to make a political statement in violation of WP:POINT, about a term occasionally used to make a tortured point itself (which is rather insulting to the victims of the actual apartheid by the way). Then the knock-on articles about other subjects continued to violate WP:POINT. Then this template was created in further violation of WP:POINT. By the time I found my routine work on Tourism in Cuba being reverted by one of the Israel focussed editors who has voted keep here - who had otherwise shown no interest in internal Caribbean affairs - and seemingly as part of this grand WP:POINT hoedown that was going on elsewhere - it became apparent how absurd and counter productive this situation had become. Stick a pin in it sooner rather than later, because I want to go back to working on Tourism in Cuba without it being impacted by some issue to do with Israel/Palestine.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  The articles are all related in that they express concerns about a certain kind of discrimination. The Crime of apartheid certainly covers all of these instances, so I'm not sure why you insist they are unrelated. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  However, you are correct, the original Allegations of Israeli apartheid article was created purely as WP:POINT, as a protest over the New antisemitism article. It was almost immediately nominated for deletion by a sockpuppet of the article's creator, as yet another WP:POINT, and he used another sockpuppet a couple of months later to again nominate it for deletion a couple of months later a sockpuppet of another editor again nominated it for deletion, in order to ensure that it actually stayed. The loving-care that article gets by people who support its agenda is rather shameful, especially given its history. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As long as we have articles on the subject, a template is needed. And I think the list will grow. Having said that, I'm not sure that articles that begin with the words "Allegations of" are necessarily a healthy thing here. I don't know that I'd mind seeing them all deleted eventually. IronDuke 15:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Which subject? Tourism in Cuba, The Israel/Palestine conflict and Sexual discrimination in Islam is not "a subject".-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"This subject" being any and all rhetorical invocations of apartheid, looked at collectively? Is there a single RS in existence anywhere that studies "this subject," or have we invented it?--G-Dett 19:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Allegations of Islamic apartheid deals with discrimination against non-muslims as "apartheid", not just sexual discrimination. Same with Allegations of Saudi apartheid.--Urthogie 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for the same reasons given at the deletion review for Allegations of apartheid. There has to be a systematic, consistent approach to this subject. Right now we are back to where we were about 10 months ago, with Israel being singled out, and it is not acceptable. 6SJ7 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment User:6SJ7, your responses both here and at the allegations of apartheid deletion review, pretty much define the stance of many of the editors who are coming in to oppose deletions. "Why should Israel be singled out?" It shouldn't be singled out (and isn't by the way, there are 3 more of these articles). But then that shouldn't be a reason to keep "novel synthesis", or even worse in my view, that shouldn't mean that a group of Israeli focussed editors can swoop in to oppose mergers/deletions regarding Cuba or Brazil based on some convoluted game against other editors on Israeli articles. See the opposition to the obvious merge of Tourism in Cuba and Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba for example which was opposed by some of the editors above purely so Israel was "not singled out" and had nothing to do with improving Cuba articles. This game is a violation of WP:POINT and the "consensus" is spurious. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, and we are meant to be improving articles for readers, not trading articles and templates in a poker game.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's a problem here, it needs to be dealt with in a holistic way. The arguments you are making apply to all the articles in the series. If you think the people who have created and are nurturing the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article are violating WP:POINT in doing so, then you should have spoken up at that article's most recent AfD. I note that you were absent there. I note as well that many who are agitating for the deletion of this template were conspicuous in their support for the retention of that article. There is a systemic problem being exposed here, but it is about the support for the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, not about the existence of this template. If it's reasonable to have any articles about this topic, then it's certainly reasonable and helpful to organize them in this way, in order to help the reader understand the various claims that are made relating to the Crime of Apartheid. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If we "help the reader understand" something that no reliable sources talk about, this is original research, no?--G-Dett 16:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I didn't arrive at the afd for the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article until it was too late. The nominator made a real mess of the whole business and only afd'd Israel, which was not on my watchlist. Had I spotted it early enough, I would have made a better fist of arguing for its deletion than the editors in that afd. As that afd was poorly executed, and many of the keep votes were illegitimate (one of the keep votes was "deleting it would be a violation of the NPOV the zionists claim" for goodness sake) I intend to initiate a proper debate about that article in due course. But in the meantime, these WP:POINT templates and articles should be judged on their merits like any other. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem which needs to be dealt with in a holistic way. However, I don't see how the creation of this template helps to solve the problem. In my opinion, it makes the problem worse. Why aren't people using Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid? ArbCom has told both camps that they need to enter mediation if they can't resolve the issues using that page. Kla'quot 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That ancient page was for the purposes of the arbitration. The current issues are not the same, and in any event are hardly intractable. Moreover, the "camps" you refer to do not appear to be the same individuals. The articles in question are currently being discussed on various AfD related pages. Do you think mediation could ever come to the conclusion that all the articles should be deleted? I don't see that as a possible outcome of mediation, and yet it would have to be at least a possibility for mediation to be of any use. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That ancient page was created before the arbitration. Actually, the ArbCom case was triggered by a move war that developed over a poll on the Centralized discussion page. The camps have changed, but many of the individuals involved are still the same. On the most contentious issues from 10 months ago, do you really think progress has been made? Kla'quot 19:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC) To answer your question, I don't think mediation would result in the deletion of all these articles, but merging is a possible scenario. Kla'quot 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the history, it's hard to remember all the specific details of exactly what was created when, whose sockpuppet did what etc. so long after the fact. Regarding some of the more contentious issues, yes, some progress has been made. The ultimate issue though, is whether or not allegations of apartheid are meaningful and encyclopedic topics, or merely rhetoric. So far there seems to be one group of editors who says "they're just rhetoric, and the actual issues should be folded into some article on human rights or some other topic", while another group of editors says "they're rhetoric when applied to any country or religion or situation other than Israel, in which case they are the Truthiest Truth there is, because Israel is a Bad, Bad, Bad country Zionist entity." Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

All these strawmen lying around are creating a real fire hazard, especially if editors here are going to play with incendiary insinuations that their rivals are bigots. No one's arguing that the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is in a class by itself within the broader category of "Allegations of apartheid," on account of its being somehow "truer." What we're arguing is that this broader category, "Allegations of apartheid," is a spurious one invented by Wikipedians with no RS-backing. Apartheid, like slavery, genocide, and ethnic cleansing, is invoked in various human-rights related contexts, sometimes rhetorically and metaphorically, at other times as the subject of sustained structural and historical comparison. Here we have Wikipedians, not any reliable sources in the real world, positing a single category conflating all these unrelated discursive situations. You wouldn't support an article and infobox for "Allegations of Ethnic Cleansing" that listed side-by-side the Katrina disaster, the gentrification of San Francisco's Mission District, and the the Janjaweed's campaign in the Sudan, would you?--G-Dett 17:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Mackan. Without commenting on developments relating to the Allegations of Apartheid article, I don't believe this template serves any useful purpose. CJCurrie 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This template lends unnecessary seriousness to an analogy which tends to be thrown around loosely. Kla'quot 07:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  How can the template do that? If anything, it's the articles that do so, particularly the hugely bloated Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, which is jealously guarded and nurtured by people insisting that this template be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  Templates like this one in Wikipedia are mostly used to navigate between articles which are parts of a whole. Having this template implies that there is a significant "whole" that all of these articles are part of. In contrast, categories are used to bind articles which are more loosely connected. A category "Allegations of apartheid" would be stylistically more appropriate than this template. I'm not one of the ones guarding or nurturing Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Kla'quot 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  No, you're not one of the ones guarding and nurturing Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The people who are in favor of the Template see these articles as parts of a whole; the whole that used to be represented by the Allegations of apartheid article, before it was quietly deleted out of process. A Category might be appropriate in addition; rest assured, though, if such a category were created, you would soon see it on WP:CFD, and those who zealously build the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article would be agitating for its deletion. Keep in mind, to those who are enamored with the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, there are only two kinds of real "apartheid"; that practiced by South Africa, and that practiced by Israel. All others must, by definition, be mere "rhetoric", or WP:POINT, since only two "regimes" were or are evil enough to actually practice the "real" thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  I would support a category, which seems the much more appropriate and conventional way of dealing with this. In my experience, infoboxes/templates are for different articles on a subject, not various examples of a thing, which indeed is exactly what categories provide. Mackan79 20:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Jay, no one's arguing that the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is in a class by itself within the broader category of "Allegations of apartheid," on account of its being somehow "truer," or that Israel and apartheid South Africa constitute uniquely "evil regimes." These are gross strawman arguments. What we're saying is that this broader category, "Allegations of apartheid," is a spurious one invented by Wikipedians with no RS-backing. An article and infobox for "Allegations of Ethnic Cleansing" that listed side-by-side the Katrina disaster, the gentrification of San Francisco's Mission District, and the the Janjaweed's campaign in the Sudan would be similarly spurious.--G-Dett 20:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  May I suggest a template, "Rhetoric of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" which would include Allegations of Israeli apartheid, New antisemitism and Pallywood. Kla'quot 20:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  Now that would without doubt be original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  As this one is.--G-Dett 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- main article shouldn't have been deleted. Also, people are incorrect to claim Allegations of Islamic apartheid is limited to gender apartheid. It also deals with religious apartheid-- the same exact claim, you will note, as is made against Israel.--Urthogie 15:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is disputed and was deleted because there apparently aren't any sources that actually discuss that topic. Even if there were: if a topic is very borderline in terms of even warranting an article, is that the kind of thing we should create banners on to spread around Wikipedia? Mackan79 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, obviously. Produce a source that links these things together and you have a case. Prove unable to do so and you don't. The usual POV pushing by the usual suspects. I remind them that there's no problem finding reliable sources that accuse Israel of apartheid, however spurious that accusation may be. Grace Note 05:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Israel is not South Africa. Equating other countries' ethnic conflicts with separate development is confusing and, yes, POV-pushing. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.Per Humus,Jay and others--Shrike 07:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Deleting the template because the use of apartheid is not consistent in all contexts is like throwing away your clock because sometimes you're a little bit late for things.Gzuckier 15:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing wrong with this template, serves as a good way to bring all the allegations of apartheid together. Epson291 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now. The rationale that this template should be deleted on the same grounds as the article is not quite a WP:WAX argument, but the article is in fact currently on WP:DRV. This template is a valid supplement to that article. If that article is deleted, this template would not be very helpful, as it would then only connect disparate articles with no uniting parent article. So, this is a keep, pending the outcome of the DRV. If and only if Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 6#Allegations of apartheid is already closed as "deletion endorsed", the closing admin may treat my !vote as "delete". — coelacan — 06:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't our standards of notability and reliable sources actually be higher for creating a banner than it is for creating an article? Of course, it's one thing to say we're going to address this subject; I think it's rather another to say Wikipedia has decided to make a template on it, to then place on multiple articles such as "Allegations of Tourist Apartheid in Cuba" and "Allegations of Brazilian Apartheid." The same thing would apply to "Allegations of Fascism" -- who knows, maybe a subject we would want to write about, but a subject for a template? I don't see it. Mackan79 14:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. An encyclopedia deals with facts, not allegations. >Radiant< 08:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The articles exist though.--Urthogie 11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The articles were all created in bad faith and in violation of WP:POINT during a tit-for-tat war over the representation of Israel, and were not created for the benefit of readers.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Grace Note, G-dett et al. Completely unencyclopedical and useless. pertn 10:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless the allegations of apartheid article can be reformed. --GHcool 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  This sort of ransom request makes pretty clear what the WP:POINT of the banner is.--G-Dett 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I came into this vote without ever having read any prior discussions about this template. I came up with my decision and response independently. If there is a history behind this template that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it was made in bad faith, I am completely unaware of it. However, if it was not made in bad faith (and upon a first glance, it appears that it was not), then I stand by my vote: it is a necessary template unless the "allegations of apartheid" article can be reformed. On the other hand, the two are redundant. A good "allegations of apartheid" article would make this template unnecessary or, conversely, this template could potentially make the "allegations of apartheid" article unnecessary. No ransom here, just a good old exercise in common sense and democracy. --GHcool 01:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Zleitzen - this seems to be a parallel discussion to the AfD of the article, my further thoughts can be found there. Baristarim 02:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - enough of this POV pushing. This is an encyclopedia, and I doubt this things was created for any purpose other than to push a POV. Patstuart^talk·edits 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- Wikipedia obviously had different article related to apartheids in different cultures, with the potential so split off more from the Allegations of apartheid article, though who can say how many would survive an AFD is anyone's guess. The term has long since expanded beyond it's historical use in South Africa. The crime of apartheid is a crime against humanity, and the U.N. has been using it in that generic sense for over 30 years now. If there's a sense the WP:COMMON sense is in short supply, that's not reason alone to get rid of this. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The validity of this infobox hinges on whether the articles on it are kept or deleted. Since both the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article and the main Allegations of apartheid article are being kept right now, the navbox is appropriate to aid navigation between them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allegations of Israeli apartheid will be up for a proper deletion debate shortly, and Allegations of apartheid should be deleted, provided the closing administrator takes into account that many of the keep votes were WP:ALLORNOTHING strategic votes by Israeli focussed editors, thus obscuring the "consensus". -- Zleitzen^(talk) 11:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The last AFD on Allegations of Israeli apartheid was quite proper. I think you are being too dismissive of the arguments you disagree with on the Allegations of apartheid AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The nominator on that afd gave virtually no justification for nominating the article - and this whole process elsewhere has been so transparently influenced by WP:ALLORNOTHING votes that fly in the face of consensus descision making processes, that the arguments have to be dismissed in order to retain some perspective on the actual issues at hand. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The template serves no useful purpose. -- ChrisO 00:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & it serves no useful purpose. If it's just because some people have bandied about the term then we should have a template mediocrity so that we can dump all movies, tv shows, and other things people have called mediocre. And template beautiful, template boring, template ugly, etc. Carlossuarez46 16:28, 17 April 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! 08:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:BioCOTWs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia:Biography Collaboration of the Week is inactive, and, should it resume operations, the template is now redundant to {{WPBiography|collaboration-candidate=yes}}. — kingboyk 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator.--Yannismarou 07:56, 18 April 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! 08:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:MedalTop-BJJ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template has been replaced by a title name option for the Template:MedalTop template. All linking pages have been converted — Ozhiker 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both this and subsequent nominations listed below, as per discussion on Template talk:MedalTop. Andrwsc 16:28, 6 April 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! 08:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:MedalTopPic-BJJ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template has been replaced by a title name option for the Template:MedalTopPic template. All linking pages have been converted — Ozhiker 12:46, 6 April 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! 08:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:MedalXGames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:MedalGoodwillGames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:MedalWorldCup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:MedalWorldIndoorChampionships (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:MedalEuropeanCup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:MedalAsianChampionships (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:MedalAsianGames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:MedalNationalGamesPRC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:MedalSkiflyingWorldChampionships (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:MedalWorldHalfMarathonChampionships (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:MedalWorldCrossCountryChampionships (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template has been replaced by the more versatile Template:MedalCompetition template. All linking pages have been converted. — Ozhiker 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Combined these nominations as they all shared the same reason. Note the two similar nominations directly above this one as well.

• Delete unused/deprecated. –Pomte 13:49, 7 April 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. Template unused,and not updated.Yannismarou 07:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:2006 AFL season/"Advanced" Ladder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The league table has been unused and not updated since May 2006. Editors used Template:2006 AFL season/"Simple" Ladder for the 2006 AFL season page instead. Delete — Celticshk ^Talk 04:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I came across this one awhile back but simply forgot to nominate it. Unused and unnecessary. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Remy B 03:08, 7 April 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. Unused.Yannismarou 07:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:As Told By Ginger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Currently unused. There is an incorrectly formatted relink to it on As Told by Ginger; that, however, is the only indication I can find where the template was going to be used. It has a limited scope as there are only four As Told By Ginger-related articles (main article, main character's bio, episode list, character list) which would likely to link to each other with or without this template. So it's unnecessary and would only provide links that are redundant to the text of the article. Delete — Iamunknown 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Presently too limited in scope to be useful. No prejudice against recreation if more articles are created. —dgies^t_c 07:14, 6 April 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 as is userfied. Harryboyles 17:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Fe411-WiiVC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Useless template. Appears to be a template created just to show which Virtual Console games User:FE411 has downloaded. Not encylopedic at all. — TJ Spyke 02:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This just needs to be moved into his name space and speedied. - hahnchen 02:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Userfied to User:FE411/WiiVC. —dgies^t_c 07:22, 6 April 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.