Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User cobol-0

Nowadays, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User cobol-0 is a topic that has gained great relevance in society. More and more people are interested in this topic and are looking for information about it. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User cobol-0 can cover a wide variety of aspects, from personal issues to current issues that impact globally. In this article, we will explore the topic of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User cobol-0 in depth and analyze its impact in different areas of daily life. From its origin to its evolution today, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User cobol-0 has generated growing interest in the public, which seeks to better understand this phenomenon and its implications.

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

The result of the discussion was keepharej 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Transferring nomination incorrectly placed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 24#Template:User cobol-0. Userboxes are supposed to be discussed at MFD. Comments already made in the TFD discussion, including the original nomination statement by Koavf (talk · contribs), are reproduced below. RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:User cobol-0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Meaningless and unnecessary —Justin (koavf)TCM02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What is meaningless and unnecessary about having a little dose of fun in the user pages? Thirteen Wikipedia users disagrees. -- Egil (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep The meaning is quite clear: The user understands that they have no COBOL skills and can admit to it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment Several -0 templates have been deleted for being unencyclopedic. What is the purpose of knowing all of the skills other editors don't have? —Justin (koavf)TCM02:38, 25 January 2010 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.