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

The result of the debate was Merge — 4 votes keep, 3 votes delete, 1 vote merge — as merge was suggested by other voters as a possible way forward, this article is to be merged as the first part of list of Megaman weapons — as was rightly pointed out, under WP:FICT this is a minor 'character'. As there is no, one suitable article to merge it with, it should go in a list with other such objects. -- Gareth Hughes 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

exists...kind of, but just not notable Gator1 17:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Gator1 17:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--I'd say merge, but it appears there would be many potential merge targets, and the material seems more appropriate here. Meelar (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. No objection to a merge to any suitable target if someone wants to do it. Dlyons493 Talk 18:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable to megaman game fans. Kappa 21:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but not that notable. So Zero had a beam sabre--so what? So did Sigma's first form in X1. Delete. Marblespire 11:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm the one who started on the article. I thought a lot of the fictional sword links were missing, so I decided to fill them in, starting with this article... And I'm still working on it, and I plan to merge it with the Megaman Zero and X articles respectively. I mean we can have an article on Buster sword and Ragnorok, but no Z-saber? Please reconsider with keeping this article. Thank you. MegamanZero 18:26 16 October 2005
• Oh keep. Dunno why this was listed. Lovely article. -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT. R adiant _>|< 22:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC) By which I mean, make a List of Megaman weapons and merge there. Context is informative, information does not want to be alone. R adiant _>|< 11:37, 20 October 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Merge what content this has into Podcasting. Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 05:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This absolutely reads like a copyvio. At best an essayish ode to the topic rather than an encyclopedia entry. Marskell 08:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — It seems like a potentially encyclopedic topic, if it's massaged a bit. I couldn't locate any obvious copyvios. — RJH 01:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. No obvious copyvios. "Media convergence" is pure POV speculation. Merge "Why news papers podcast" to podcast article. --  Perfecto  01:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: relisted for lacking votes. Johnleemk | Talk 09:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research and speculation, or userfy if author wants to keep it. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/ _[C] (W) AfD? 18:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per RJHall. Ban e s 17:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete reads like a magazine piece, definitely reeks of copyvio or original research, and is simultaneously not very informative. Accordingly, I vote to lose it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep , seems like a damned good written article with great research thesis statements. Just needs some ommission of the POV and it'll go far.- MegamanZero 19:37 8,December 2005 (UTC)
• On second thought, merge; the content is neat and somewhat informative, but lacks the stability and forwardness of other articles, if the article can't be found a suitable place, or can't be wikified, delete.- User:MegamanZero 20:55 8,December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic and does seem to come form an anon for advertising their site/nwespaper/wahetever -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 18:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Podcasting-- MONGO 20:23, 8 December 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I might be barking up the wrong tree here, but this seems a suitable candidate for deletion - this is a POV essay in the first person, not an encyclopedia article. Colonel Tom 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the text as a copyright violation; the former contents can be found here. - Mike Rosoft 20:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. Very nonneutral POV and not encyclopedic. Kerowyn 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Nope, this is the right tree.  :) I don't know if this is quite a speedy, but it sure is a delete. I've left polite word on the author's talk page. I don't want to bite the newbie on this one. Someone who takes this much time to write an article of this size is someone who can be of benefit to this site. - Lucky 6.9 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you there, Lucky 6.9. Cheers, Colonel Tom 00:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV essay. Gazpacho 00:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. But I do share Lucky 6.9's view that some thoughtful time went into the article's creation. I'm wondering if there isn't a place for this somewhere in the wikiverse. Ifnord 00:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete personal essay, far too long, ending with POV stuff on feminism that also doesn't belong in an article with this scope. Maybe some of the stuff could be in WikiBibleCommentary:Relationships or its talk page when that exists. Kusma (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, there is a copyright at the end, as well, text is not GFDL-- Ztuni 00:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom dr.alf 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete misogynistic essay.. it's either a copyvio or original research, too. Rhobite 02:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Ztuni. - Pure blade | ^☼ 02:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Francs 2000 02:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nothing very new here. Just...trying not to bite the newbie...licking chops... Durova 02:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The copyright notice at the end is amusing: more than twenty years' work went into that article it seems. Flapdragon 06:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as there is already an article ( Christian views of women) on this topic that is much more readably formatted and not copyrighted. Also, I would question the neutrality of any article title that includes the phrase, "what the Bible really says, as though Wikipedia is the definitive source on that topic. - AdelaMae ^{( talk - contribs)} 06:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hopelessly POV, original research, may even be considered an attack page. — JIP | Talk 10:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - holy crap that's long! And people think my articles are big! LOL. Sorry I didn't read it. But the title is bad. "really" is a hint that its inherently biased. I just can't see how we can get around that and make it neutral or useful. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the copyright notice at the bottom suggests it's a copyvio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Are we sure there is no speedy criterion we could apply here? -- 80.222.74.5 14:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in the first para of this poorly edited POV essay is a personal attack. The third para informs us the target audience is Christians, no one else. This belongs on a Christian POV site, not WP. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 15:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment can we speedy because of the copyright notice at end? "Copyright © 1981-2005 David Knoll" KillerChihuahua ^?!? 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio can be speedied within 48 hours of article creation. Peyna 15:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete everything a Wikipedia article should not have - NPOV, generalisations (just look at the title ffs), copyright violations, its length, aarrgh...everything! **swats with rolled up newspaper** XYaAsehShalomX 15:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. While the article title could be an example of what Wikipedia:Article point of view vs NPOV is trying to propose, the article is far too misogynistic for my tastes. -- Interiot 17:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and begone! - max rspct 18:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and banish to hell. Gateman1997 19:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I cheerfully confess I did not read the whole thing. Smerdis of Tlön 19:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• A sexist, fundamentalist essay (unless it is a parody), and also a copyvio: "Copyright © 1981-2005 David Knoll". Delete as patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Let me just say that I have seldom seen anything so misogynistic in my entire life. I'm proud to be male, but I cannot understand anyone who hates women this much. I propose that if this article is deleted, and the author creates other misogynistic articles, they will be speedy deleted on sight. — JIP | Talk 20:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete beginning an article with who should NOT read the article is not the way to go. -- Bachrach44 20:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with great haste and extreme prejudice. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/ _[C] (W) AfD? 21:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Smite this article speedily for all of the above reasons. B.Wind 03:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, relevant info could easily be ultilized a better more expanded article concerning the bible; WP:POV- MegamanZero 0:25 7,December 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT, this list is a set of tips for the Duke Nukem multiplayer mode. There's nothing here worth merging. I'm unsure about a transwiki. Durova 04:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Although I'm sure it doesn't say it anywhere, Wikipedia is not Gamefaqs.com. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gamecruft of the highest order Flyboy Will 08:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• GameFaqs should have something like this. That's a transwikify. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We can transwiki to Gamefaqs? Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. I also don't see how this could be transwikied. Bmdavll ^talk 22:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Holy crap, Zordrac, you're making up transwikis now! :P  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; obviously gamefaqs and tipe/tricks material in the strictest sense of the word.- MegamanZero 0:25 7,December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete unnecessary. Mo0[ talk] 23:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because we must eliminate as much knowledge as possible about violent video games. They desensitize us to harsh violence.... But honestly this article needs to go, put this info in the actual video game information. Croat Canuck 02:17, 9 December 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There's already a Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters, which points to articles on the characters, including what happened to them. Most of the entries are either robots (in which case their inclusion in such a list is questionable) or are marked as possibly still being alive or might be making appearances in future Sonic games. -- Jtalledo (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right...but still NO! This article cleary gives out details, through Sonic Titles timeline. You can see/tell from "sonic R" characters that are dead, from past games. althouhg it needs more work, because it looks like a "Stub" to me. Sonic The Hedgehog Characters is also good, I like the way the contents is laid out, but There is a difference,. Sonic The Hedgehog characters that have died & Sonic The Hedgehog Charcaters, if this articles is much improve, it will be worth it to stay This article explains it all, but with less details, it makes this article look like cheap I don't know if it is a delete: Yes or No: I will say No...Waiting for others, for their thoughts >x<ino 01:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Transfer information to the respective character articles, if it is not there already, then delete the list. Saberwyn 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've juest checked them all out, and this information is already contained in the various characters' articles. Changing to outright delete.
• Delete per above. worthawholebean _talk ^contribs 02:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless article, all information is contained in the character's respective articles. - Pure blade | ^☼ 02:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to this information already being stated elsewhere. Mo0[ talk] 03:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Fancruft. -- Apostrophe 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Nop, i say Keep We need a section to tell all characters that passed away in Sonic Titles >x<ino 05:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Good heavens, what on Earth for? Delete. -- Agamemnon2 14:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Beats me. I'm still trying to get used to video games having characters. — JIP | Talk 15:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no. We need an article on Gallo-Iberian languages, one on Emperor Muzong of Liao, one on J. William Stanton, and one on the Channel Fleet. But not one on all the characters that passed away in Sonic titles. Delete. Herostratus 22:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator. There's no real need for a page like this -- it's actually a category, and one of dubious utility. -- FreelanceWizard 09:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a category for Sonic the Hedgehog characters is fine, but this is bordering on fancruft. — JIP | Talk 10:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ok if you want to delete it Fine! But the Sonic The Hedgehog characters needs more improvment >x<ino 15:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not like it hurts anything by being here. You might say there's no reason to have it because the info is in the character articles, but there's no reason not to have it either. Here, the info is all brought together, and besides, other characters might die in future games. If you aren't interested in what it has to say, just don't read it, don't delete it and ruin it for others who are interested. I've said it before and I'll say it again, do deletionists want to read the entire encyclopedia? Yeltensic42.618 17:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, they don't and who says they do? Just because an article doesn't "hurt anything" doesn't make it something that should be included on Wikipedia. You could argue the same thing for practically every article that goes through afd. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's nothing preventing you from making the list elsewhere. -- Jtalledo (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, you can't argue that for evey article on afd. If it's a hoax, a chunk of garbled gibberish nonsense, a vanity page for some loser like me (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris bensko, not one of my finer moments), an attack page, an ad, or original research, then bring down the 16-ton weight. Otherwise, there's no real need to delete it. Yeltensic42.618 22:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, but they're not "hurting anything by being there". Which, by your logic, should prevent them from being deleted. -- Apostrophe 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, they are. Attack pages are a form of trolling; original research is, for good reason, against Wikipedia policy; hoax articles, by definition, are full of lies; ads, vanity pages for losers like me, and garbled gibberish tarnish Wikipedia when people do random article searches and find it. This article is not a troll page; it is not original research, all the information is from verifiable sources; it is not a hoax; it is not an ad for the games, a string of garbled gibberish, or a vanity page about the contributor, nor does it tarnish Wikipedia in any other way. Yes, it covers information that can be found in other articles, but here it brings it all together. True, few people will be looking for it, but you'd be surprised at some of the things people want to find out. By its very nature, Wikipedia has plenty of room for minor or obscure topics not covered in the Britannica...topics like this. If you are not interested in the topic, just don't read the article. There may be others who want to see what it has to say. Yeltensic42.618 22:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, FreelanceWizard, and JIP. → Ξxtreme Unction { ^yakł _blah} 17:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete insofar as: how can any fictional character "die" if they never truly lived? Seriously. I read DC Comics as a youth and one aspect was that the term dead was to be expressed in quotation marks. Jtmichcock 19:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Um...you do realize that by "die", they mean dying in the story, right? Yeltensic42.618 22:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep. That's correct. Jtmichcock 00:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• There is no point of arguging with this fools, they act like they own wiki >x<ino 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There's no room for personal attacks in Wikipedia. 147.70.242.21 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't worry, he calls everyone a fool, whether he likes them or not, it isn't an insult. It's a reference to Mr. T:I pity da fool! Yeltensic42.618 15:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• (as per Strong Bad) Oh, this is clearly the best possible use of Wikipedia resources! DELETED!! Ha ha ha!!!! — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• I was going to try and clean this up, as Xino likes to mess with formatting on AfDs of his articles, but I'm just going to leave it and say Delete.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Until Jim Carroll has a song about them, they are not people who died. Death is something that organisms experience. Bytes do not die. They return to the Source and rejuvenate the Matrix. If Sonic the Hedgehog could die really, then he'd have been dead by now. Do not merge. Do not redirect. Do not continue. Geogre 01:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not pass Go? Do not collect $200? :)  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 02:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Geogre, obviously "die" in this context means "die in the story" of the games. You have written a lot about 18th century British literature, and I'm sure characters die in works you've written about; how are bytes any different from ink? By your argument, we should eradicate all mention of death from articles you have written. Yeltensic42.618 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Geogre (!!!) and as fancruft/gamecruft. MCB 08:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per reason for its content borders on the sheer edge of absurdity.- MegamanZero 0:25 7,December 2005 (UTC)
• "DELETED!! Ha ha ha!!!! — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC) " LOL, i feel sorry for that fool that made the page " as Xino likes to mess with formatting on AfDs of his articles" what's AFD's...oh no...don't tell me, everysingle article i made, has been copyright or i broke the rules >x<ino 15:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ridiculous fancruft. Andrew Levine 19:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean FanCruft? >x<ino 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Fancruft means crappy blather articles written by hardcore fans of the subject with excessively detailed information (they also have names for sub-genres like gamecruft, bloggercruft, and even Simpsons-cruft). As this article is not especially crappily written and is not excessively detailed (it just has the simple info of which characters have died), it really isn't fancruft. Yeltensic42.618 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Another word from interent...dammit! ok what ever

But is the "Crufty" similar to "Fan"

Anyway, even if it has crappy details...We are Wikipedians, we improve articles, correct and BOLD! >x<ino 02:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete fancruft. Martg76 19:50, 10 December 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep deleted. It's good to have consensus on this. Additionally this nomination was yet another violation of WP:POINT. I'm closing it early per WP:SNOW. If you disagree, list it on Wikipedia:Deletion review review (don't). -- MarkSweep  (call me collect) 23:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This template was speedy deleted with minimal comment, and does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. It should be undeleted, or at least undeleted into user space. It was speedy deleted as part of an ongoing wheel war on a different template, and appears to have been confused with that template. It is not a recreation of deleted content. -- Dschor 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Inflamatory. No value to the Wikipedia. May be a violation of WP:Point. Hamster Sandwich 14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. While not identical to the template that resulted in the firestorm earlier this week, this template is in poor taste and bringing it back is likely to be unnecessarily inflammatory. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above. Marskell 14:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. In principle, this is a recreation (even if not identical) of the previously deleted templates and smacks of WP:POINT big time, especially given the constant recreations of those two templates. -- D e ath phoenix 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This template is not a recreation, and was expressly intended not to make a point. -- Dschor 14:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted No way I can imagine that this could help us build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be useful for folks working on pedophilia related articles to find other editors to help out? -- Dschor 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It cited as a "talk page", dear Dschor. Try using them instead. From previous experiences, I'm inclied to think they work. - Zero ^Talk 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted obvious fork of {user pedophile} which was wheel-warred and eventually burned with fire by Jimbo. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/ _[C] 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted, properly deleted as unencyclopedic, WP:POINT, disruptive, you name it. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep that crap deleted. Seriously. -- F a ng Aili 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We wouldn't have all this userbox trouble if people weren't idiots when it came to them. - R. fiend 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think our determination of what constitutes idiocy may differ slightly. -- Dschor 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Dschor with an issue like userboxes sometimes you have pick your battles. We will never get everyone to agree to allow all userboxes and we will never agree to having them all destroyed. The best argument, in a situation like this, attempts to find a middle ground. We should concentrate our efforts to save the important boxes that contain political expressions and idealogies. Userboxes like this only serve to further polarise everyone.-- God of War 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate that some templates are more popular than others. I do not think deletion should be a popularity contest. This template was created as an attempt to find a middle ground, but was deleted immediately. This box has no POV, no political expression, and is clearly not divisive. The fact that it can be speedied and kept deleted demonstrates that there is censorship in user space, and that it is not based on anything aside from the bias and prejudice of editors. I have chosen this battle very carefully, and would not be defending this userbox if I did not feel that it is a perfect example of why the deletionists are wrong. -- Dschor 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Keep deleted. This template is slanderous in the clearest sense of the word. - Zero ^Talk 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is clearly not slanderous, in any sense of the word. This deletion, however, has led many editors to slander the creator of the template - but the template itself remains NPOV, factual, and helpful. -- Dschor 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia; I believe this template to be out of place here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete. PLEASE...keep this same old template deleted. Why do we need so many pointless userboxes that upset people and contribute nothing. Enough is enough. This just another WP:POINT vilation. This is not even funny. Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 22:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - If this isn't a valid CSD T1 then nothing is. --- Charles Stewart ^(talk) 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We can't use CSD T1 yet (as Jimbo asked us not to), but this template is polarizing nonsense. Ask Brion to take the edits off the database. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 23:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• This is an encyclopedia. ENCEPHALON 23:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - although this appears doomed due to vote stacking and intolerance. -- Dschor 23:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid CSD. -- FloNight 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Care to provide some evidence for the vote-stacking assertion? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/ _[C] 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• See above. This drv is full of folks who simply dislike userboxes, and who recognize that few wikipedians will go out on a limb to prevent the deletion of less popular templates. This userbox would be perfect for a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia, and really has no offensive content at all. This is an example of improper use of speedy deletion. Remember Speedy Deletion is not a Toy. -- Dschor 23:46, 7 February 2006 (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 page.