Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 20

< July 19	July 21 >

July 20, 2006[edit]

Template:Nn-bio[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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This form of the speedy bio template is obsolete. The reason I want it deleted is that its name perpetuates the idea that "nn" is a speedy deletion reason; it's not. I would prefer to redirect nn-bio to Template:afd1, even... I have a replacement solution involving PROD at User:Mangojuice/sandbox but I think it could be problematic because people should be aware they're using prod, or we could get re-prods, prods on previously AfD'd stuff, et cetera. Also including Template:nn-band here, same reasons. Mango juice^talk 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but maybe redirect. Vanity is a speedy deletion criterion and that's what this template is intended (and used) for. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep against nom. VERY USEFUL Antares33712 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is the only template for non-notable people that are not singers. It is often a good way to get rid of hoaxes, especially ones about fake people. Hoaxes often have no claim of notability, so this is a good way to get rid of hoaxes about fake people, like Harris mercer and E. B. Mud. (The previous two links link to those hoaxes' AFDs, which were ended early when I tagged them with {{Db-bio}}. Jesse Viviano 01:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ridiculous nomination. --Calton | Talk 01:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Db-bio}} This template is exactly the same as {{Db-bio}}. Jesse Viviano 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly redirected to {{db-bio}}. Roy A.A. 01:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ack! No, no: they were previously redirects. I changed them back so that the TFD notice wouldn't make things break. Mango juice^talk 13:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably the most frequently used and useful speedy tag! -- RHaworth 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very useful for CSD enforcement. Sandstein 06:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Tonywalton | Talk 13:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to other template. Non-notable is not a CSD. The CSD A7 states, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." This is much stroger that "non-notable." Polonium 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Polonium. I'm not certain that other participants have appreciated that Mango means neither to suggest that A7 is no longer a valid speedy deletion criterion nor to suggest that new page patrollers happening upon biographical pages that fail to assert the notability of their respective subjects; rather, he means, properly, to observe that there exists a profound difference between that which is non-notable and that which fails to assert notability (for more on which, see, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, where the issue seems to arise at least once weekly). Whilst users may require a short period during which to adapt to using {{db-bio}} instead of {{nn-bio}} (although I'm not certain, in any event, that many editors use the latter), such quasi-disruptive or -deleterious effect is surely outweighed by the benefits of our once more elucidating A7. Joe 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. the wub "?!" 23:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect Does the job of A7. Per above. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename {{db-vanity}}; which will answer the nominator's objection. Septentrionalis 17:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I realize this is coming late but this is the kind of edit I'm concerned with. I mean, yeah, obviously delete that article, but even the TITLE claims notability, and yet, {{nn-bio}} is being used. Mango juice^talk 04:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful -ScotchMB 12:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never seen it used. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep one of the most used speedy deletion templates. Viridae ^Talk 01:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, what a mess. And by the way, delete as being an exact duplicate of {{db-bio}}. Fredil Yupigo 02:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as exact copies of db-bio & db-band, which should (of course) remain. I'll be sure to quit using both (I'm so lazy that "nn" is just faster to type 'cause I don't have to, you know, switch fingers when I type!). -- Scientizzle 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:Http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=40&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=1756&change_well_id=2[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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Ryan Delaney. -- ADNghiem501 00:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC) This template looks like it was created by a clueless newbie looking to add a link. Jesse Viviano 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No value. Neil916 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were really clueless, it should have been speedied, no? Antares33712 16:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This does not fit any of the criteria on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. It is not patent nonsense because it is a URL. It is not a test page. It is not vandalism, because this user was trying to do something useful, but did not know what he was doing. This does not fall under housekeeping, because this is not one of the usual housekeeping tasks like history merges, removal of unneeded disambiguation pages, or reversing a redirect. It is also not an inflammatory template like one that is used to accuse other users of being pedophiles, racists, or other nasty terms without evidence. If it fit any of these, I would have had it nominated for speedy deletion instead. Jesse Viviano 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, it does look like a test page. Apparently someone speedied it. Hbdragon88 19:16, 21 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:Hunter College High School infobox[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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not being used, and Hunter College High School already has a better infobox. --Anakata 18:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This school, though noteworthy, doesn't deserve its own template. Especially if it already has a perfectly good generic school infobox.--Anakata 18:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Issue was discussed on the school's talk page and Anakata converted it to a generic infobox on May 30 2006. Neil916 20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. enochlau (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 03:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generic infobox suits fine. Tinlinkin 07:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 19:50, 25 July 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.

Template:Operation Grapes of Wrath[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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It only links to two articles. Tewfik^Talk 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two articles that the template links to are already linked in the "see also" section of the main article. Neil916 20:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it links only to 2 articles, I think it'll be more helpfull if it've been developped in order to cover all civilians victims during the aggression pointed in the article such a way to be more comprehensible and efficient than the "see also" page. --Banzoo 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is that each of those civilian victims aren't notable enough to warrant separate wikipedia articles. So what will the template link to? Neil916 23:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per Neil916. It's a method of POV pushing, attmepting to elevate otherwise non-notable (though tragic) cases of civilian victims to a notable status. Isarig 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, pointless, clearly intended to promote a specific POV. One of the two articles this links to shouldn't even exist. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this delete GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 19:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no reason to have a template for 2/3 pages.38.100.16.194 22:23, 26 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:Chess[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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Ryan Delaney. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious error in creation. Not used. Does not meet criteria for speedy deletion (though maybe this needs to be added to that criteria?). MECU≈talk 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete.. It's blank except for the template for deletion tag. History shows it was just created with static text "what are your favorite games?", then text removed a minute later by creator with edit summary "oops". Meets WP:SPEEDY general criteria #1, #2, and #7 Neil916 20:26, 20 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:Afdf[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 page.

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, redirecting to Template:db-afd. If there's a AfD with a clear and unambiguous "delete" consensus, inserting this template or {{db-afd}} into the article would still get the article deleted by throwing it into CAT:CSD. It's just a slight variation in the workflow, and maybe, it can help to speed up closings by getting non-admins to chip in. Kimchi.sg 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless template created by a non-admin, ostensibly to help close AfD discussions with a "delete" consensus faster. It is not helpful at all; if someone wanted the text of the article to be saved, they would usually have had at least 5 days to do so. Kimchi.sg 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to Wikipedia:Deletion process, admins should close discussions that result in delete - I see that as just common sense. I don't see who this saves time for. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this must be deleted and it's causing problems, I will let this run its course and leave closing "delete" AFDs to admins (until I become myself). Until then, I'll look for discussions about pages that have a "keep" consensus. Mostly Rainy 11:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-admins closing "delete" AFDs is probably not a good idea. Kusma (討論) 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, we're not holding policy discussions here, and yes anyone is certainly permitted close an AFD, as long as they stick to the rules. It was just always a little impractical for non-admins because they can't delete, so they could only ever close as "keep" and "no consensus" . This template is a good solution. :-) Kim Bruning 11:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Db-afd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). In fact afdf appears to be redundant with db-afd. (this is the template recommended on the deletion process page mentioned by Samuel Blanning). And have fun closing AfD discussions! Kim Bruning 12:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, closing AfDs is only a two-step process for sysops. This may actually create more work for us instead. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines are not decided here. The guidelines say it is permitted (explicitly so). They also already provide a template, so this one is redundant. Kim Bruning 12:47, 20 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:SG junior college[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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been phased out and replaced with Template:Infobox Singapore School. Hintha 07:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, OB. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it can be tagged speedy since author nominated the template for deletion. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 03:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 19:48, 25 July 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.

Template:Spanish flu research[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 page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~This template has been substed and orphaned and would serve no use as a template as it provides article-like content. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

This template will be unsubsted and unorphaned and will again serve as a way of placing a single text subsection on "Spanish flu research" at Flu research and at Spanish flu. Substituting means changes have to be place in two places instead of one. The content is equally valid for both articles. Neither artice is long enough that it makes sense to break them into tiny pieces that link to each other. The fact that this mechanism is called a "template" is irrelevant unless the same mechanism exists under a different name. I am now going yo revert you. please don'y revert me back. If you want to help, you can expand or rewrite Spanish flu as recent research made previous sources and content inaccurate and the article has therefore undergone drastic cuts. WAS 4.250 11:04, 20 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:Christian30[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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template for non-notable christian network, the network doesn't need an article, let alone a template, it's part of an astroturfing campaign. See WP:AN/I. Mak (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fair use images are only permitted in article space. BigDT 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have listed the main article on AFD, someone else has proded all of the other articles, and I have listed the image on WP:IFD. BigDT 05:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One other note ... take a look at Portal:Christianity/Article Archive/Suggestions. Within 27 minutes, a redlinked user proposed the article and two other brand new users with no other contributions whatsoever showed up to support the idea. Hmmmmm ... BigDT 05:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's a huge sockpuppet-fest. There's at least eight, and probably more, pretend "users" supporting this thing. Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, astroturfing not ok on Wikipedia, see WP:NOT. Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments in the AFD. --—Core des at talk. o.o;; 15:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, astroturfing. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as astroturfing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete astroturf GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 19:46, 25 July 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.