Template talk:POV

Discussion
I am changing the wording from "will be subject to deletion" to "might be subject to deletion". My idea is that most NPOV violations should be left for eventual editing instead of deleted. Also, they probably are not speedy-deletion candidates (unless they also violate WB:WIW) so WB:VFD might vote to keep the page.

Actually, Deletion policy suggests that NPOV violations should be edited, not deleted. But NPOV dispute describes {[tl|npov}} (which redirects here) as a temporary state. The only alternative to an eventual edit is an eventual deletion.

This template happens to be a good demonstration of includeonly and noinclude tags. --Kernigh 06:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)